❓ A parliamentary question regarding the impact of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) on Western Australia, followed by a lengthy response from the Premier criticising the tax and the process by which it was implemented, highlighting concerns about federal overreach and environmental approvals.
AnsweredQoN 804Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
minerals resource rent tax — WESTERN aUSTRALIAN IMPACT
Can the Premier please explain to the house what impact Labor — Mr P. Papalia : The hardest working member of Parliament! The SPEAKER : If the member for Warnbro wants to ask a question, I will give him that opportunity. I formally call the member to order for the first time today. Mr I.C. BLAYNEY : Can the Premier please explain to the house what impact Labor’s, the Greens’, Rob Oakeshott’s and Tony Windsor’s mining tax will have on Western Australia? Mr C.J. BARNETT
Can the Premier please explain to the house what impact Labor — Mr P. Papalia : The hardest working member of Parliament! The SPEAKER : If the member for Warnbro wants to ask a question, I will give him that opportunity. I formally call the member to order for the first time today. Mr I.C. BLAYNEY : Can the Premier please explain to the house what impact Labor’s, the Greens’, Rob Oakeshott’s and Tony Windsor’s mining tax will have on Western Australia? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
It is a good question and I thank the member for Geraldton for it. It seems that Rob Oakeshott is now basically controlling the agenda in Australia. He is the man who took 22 minutes to decide which side of politics he would support, and his deputy leader is Tony Windsor. The last 24 hours has been one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics. This is a policy that the Labor Party in Western Australia now formally supports. Let me just tell members what this is about. To get the support of Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor for the minerals resource rent tax, those two members raised the issue of coal seam gas in their electorate, perhaps legitimately. There is no doubt there are significant environmental issues related to coal seam gas extraction. In response, the deal that was done by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer was to recognise that there were environmental issues and they would set up an independent expert scientific committee. I have no objection to that. I think that more work should be done on the science and understanding of the impact coal seam gas extraction has on near-surface water structures and the like. It is a real issue. They also proposed—this was outlined in a letter from the Prime Minister to me and, I presume, other Premiers—that in addition to the expert scientific committee, there would be a proposal for a national partnership on approvals. That is a whole new layer of federal bureaucracy on project approvals. Initially — Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr P. Papalia : The hardest working member of Parliament! The SPEAKER : If the member for Warnbro wants to ask a question, I will give him that opportunity. I formally call the member to order for the first time today. Mr I.C. BLAYNEY : Can the Premier please explain to the house what impact Labor’s, the Greens’, Rob Oakeshott’s and Tony Windsor’s mining tax will have on Western Australia? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question and I thank the member for Geraldton for it. It seems that Rob Oakeshott is now basically controlling the agenda in Australia. He is the man who took 22 minutes to decide which side of politics he would support, and his deputy leader is Tony Windsor. The last 24 hours has been one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics. This is a policy that the Labor Party in Western Australia now formally supports. Let me just tell members what this is about. To get the support of Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor for the minerals resource rent tax, those two members raised the issue of coal seam gas in their electorate, perhaps legitimately. There is no doubt there are significant environmental issues related to coal seam gas extraction. In response, the deal that was done by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer was to recognise that there were environmental issues and they would set up an independent expert scientific committee. I have no objection to that. I think that more work should be done on the science and understanding of the impact coal seam gas extraction has on near-surface water structures and the like. It is a real issue. They also proposed—this was outlined in a letter from the Prime Minister to me and, I presume, other Premiers—that in addition to the expert scientific committee, there would be a proposal for a national partnership on approvals. That is a whole new layer of federal bureaucracy on project approvals. Initially — Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The SPEAKER : If the member for Warnbro wants to ask a question, I will give him that opportunity. I formally call the member to order for the first time today. Mr I.C. BLAYNEY : Can the Premier please explain to the house what impact Labor’s, the Greens’, Rob Oakeshott’s and Tony Windsor’s mining tax will have on Western Australia? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question and I thank the member for Geraldton for it. It seems that Rob Oakeshott is now basically controlling the agenda in Australia. He is the man who took 22 minutes to decide which side of politics he would support, and his deputy leader is Tony Windsor. The last 24 hours has been one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics. This is a policy that the Labor Party in Western Australia now formally supports. Let me just tell members what this is about. To get the support of Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor for the minerals resource rent tax, those two members raised the issue of coal seam gas in their electorate, perhaps legitimately. There is no doubt there are significant environmental issues related to coal seam gas extraction. In response, the deal that was done by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer was to recognise that there were environmental issues and they would set up an independent expert scientific committee. I have no objection to that. I think that more work should be done on the science and understanding of the impact coal seam gas extraction has on near-surface water structures and the like. It is a real issue. They also proposed—this was outlined in a letter from the Prime Minister to me and, I presume, other Premiers—that in addition to the expert scientific committee, there would be a proposal for a national partnership on approvals. That is a whole new layer of federal bureaucracy on project approvals. Initially — Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr I.C. BLAYNEY : Can the Premier please explain to the house what impact Labor’s, the Greens’, Rob Oakeshott’s and Tony Windsor’s mining tax will have on Western Australia? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question and I thank the member for Geraldton for it. It seems that Rob Oakeshott is now basically controlling the agenda in Australia. He is the man who took 22 minutes to decide which side of politics he would support, and his deputy leader is Tony Windsor. The last 24 hours has been one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics. This is a policy that the Labor Party in Western Australia now formally supports. Let me just tell members what this is about. To get the support of Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor for the minerals resource rent tax, those two members raised the issue of coal seam gas in their electorate, perhaps legitimately. There is no doubt there are significant environmental issues related to coal seam gas extraction. In response, the deal that was done by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer was to recognise that there were environmental issues and they would set up an independent expert scientific committee. I have no objection to that. I think that more work should be done on the science and understanding of the impact coal seam gas extraction has on near-surface water structures and the like. It is a real issue. They also proposed—this was outlined in a letter from the Prime Minister to me and, I presume, other Premiers—that in addition to the expert scientific committee, there would be a proposal for a national partnership on approvals. That is a whole new layer of federal bureaucracy on project approvals. Initially — Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question and I thank the member for Geraldton for it. It seems that Rob Oakeshott is now basically controlling the agenda in Australia. He is the man who took 22 minutes to decide which side of politics he would support, and his deputy leader is Tony Windsor. The last 24 hours has been one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics. This is a policy that the Labor Party in Western Australia now formally supports. Let me just tell members what this is about. To get the support of Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor for the minerals resource rent tax, those two members raised the issue of coal seam gas in their electorate, perhaps legitimately. There is no doubt there are significant environmental issues related to coal seam gas extraction. In response, the deal that was done by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer was to recognise that there were environmental issues and they would set up an independent expert scientific committee. I have no objection to that. I think that more work should be done on the science and understanding of the impact coal seam gas extraction has on near-surface water structures and the like. It is a real issue. They also proposed—this was outlined in a letter from the Prime Minister to me and, I presume, other Premiers—that in addition to the expert scientific committee, there would be a proposal for a national partnership on approvals. That is a whole new layer of federal bureaucracy on project approvals. Initially — Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
It is a good question and I thank the member for Geraldton for it. It seems that Rob Oakeshott is now basically controlling the agenda in Australia. He is the man who took 22 minutes to decide which side of politics he would support, and his deputy leader is Tony Windsor. The last 24 hours has been one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics. This is a policy that the Labor Party in Western Australia now formally supports. Let me just tell members what this is about. To get the support of Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor for the minerals resource rent tax, those two members raised the issue of coal seam gas in their electorate, perhaps legitimately. There is no doubt there are significant environmental issues related to coal seam gas extraction. In response, the deal that was done by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer was to recognise that there were environmental issues and they would set up an independent expert scientific committee. I have no objection to that. I think that more work should be done on the science and understanding of the impact coal seam gas extraction has on near-surface water structures and the like. It is a real issue. They also proposed—this was outlined in a letter from the Prime Minister to me and, I presume, other Premiers—that in addition to the expert scientific committee, there would be a proposal for a national partnership on approvals. That is a whole new layer of federal bureaucracy on project approvals. Initially — Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr P. Papalia : The hardest working member of Parliament! The SPEAKER : If the member for Warnbro wants to ask a question, I will give him that opportunity. I formally call the member to order for the first time today. Mr I.C. BLAYNEY : Can the Premier please explain to the house what impact Labor’s, the Greens’, Rob Oakeshott’s and Tony Windsor’s mining tax will have on Western Australia? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question and I thank the member for Geraldton for it. It seems that Rob Oakeshott is now basically controlling the agenda in Australia. He is the man who took 22 minutes to decide which side of politics he would support, and his deputy leader is Tony Windsor. The last 24 hours has been one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics. This is a policy that the Labor Party in Western Australia now formally supports. Let me just tell members what this is about. To get the support of Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor for the minerals resource rent tax, those two members raised the issue of coal seam gas in their electorate, perhaps legitimately. There is no doubt there are significant environmental issues related to coal seam gas extraction. In response, the deal that was done by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer was to recognise that there were environmental issues and they would set up an independent expert scientific committee. I have no objection to that. I think that more work should be done on the science and understanding of the impact coal seam gas extraction has on near-surface water structures and the like. It is a real issue. They also proposed—this was outlined in a letter from the Prime Minister to me and, I presume, other Premiers—that in addition to the expert scientific committee, there would be a proposal for a national partnership on approvals. That is a whole new layer of federal bureaucracy on project approvals. Initially — Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The SPEAKER : If the member for Warnbro wants to ask a question, I will give him that opportunity. I formally call the member to order for the first time today. Mr I.C. BLAYNEY : Can the Premier please explain to the house what impact Labor’s, the Greens’, Rob Oakeshott’s and Tony Windsor’s mining tax will have on Western Australia? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question and I thank the member for Geraldton for it. It seems that Rob Oakeshott is now basically controlling the agenda in Australia. He is the man who took 22 minutes to decide which side of politics he would support, and his deputy leader is Tony Windsor. The last 24 hours has been one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics. This is a policy that the Labor Party in Western Australia now formally supports. Let me just tell members what this is about. To get the support of Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor for the minerals resource rent tax, those two members raised the issue of coal seam gas in their electorate, perhaps legitimately. There is no doubt there are significant environmental issues related to coal seam gas extraction. In response, the deal that was done by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer was to recognise that there were environmental issues and they would set up an independent expert scientific committee. I have no objection to that. I think that more work should be done on the science and understanding of the impact coal seam gas extraction has on near-surface water structures and the like. It is a real issue. They also proposed—this was outlined in a letter from the Prime Minister to me and, I presume, other Premiers—that in addition to the expert scientific committee, there would be a proposal for a national partnership on approvals. That is a whole new layer of federal bureaucracy on project approvals. Initially — Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr I.C. BLAYNEY : Can the Premier please explain to the house what impact Labor’s, the Greens’, Rob Oakeshott’s and Tony Windsor’s mining tax will have on Western Australia? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question and I thank the member for Geraldton for it. It seems that Rob Oakeshott is now basically controlling the agenda in Australia. He is the man who took 22 minutes to decide which side of politics he would support, and his deputy leader is Tony Windsor. The last 24 hours has been one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics. This is a policy that the Labor Party in Western Australia now formally supports. Let me just tell members what this is about. To get the support of Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor for the minerals resource rent tax, those two members raised the issue of coal seam gas in their electorate, perhaps legitimately. There is no doubt there are significant environmental issues related to coal seam gas extraction. In response, the deal that was done by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer was to recognise that there were environmental issues and they would set up an independent expert scientific committee. I have no objection to that. I think that more work should be done on the science and understanding of the impact coal seam gas extraction has on near-surface water structures and the like. It is a real issue. They also proposed—this was outlined in a letter from the Prime Minister to me and, I presume, other Premiers—that in addition to the expert scientific committee, there would be a proposal for a national partnership on approvals. That is a whole new layer of federal bureaucracy on project approvals. Initially — Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question and I thank the member for Geraldton for it. It seems that Rob Oakeshott is now basically controlling the agenda in Australia. He is the man who took 22 minutes to decide which side of politics he would support, and his deputy leader is Tony Windsor. The last 24 hours has been one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics. This is a policy that the Labor Party in Western Australia now formally supports. Let me just tell members what this is about. To get the support of Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor for the minerals resource rent tax, those two members raised the issue of coal seam gas in their electorate, perhaps legitimately. There is no doubt there are significant environmental issues related to coal seam gas extraction. In response, the deal that was done by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer was to recognise that there were environmental issues and they would set up an independent expert scientific committee. I have no objection to that. I think that more work should be done on the science and understanding of the impact coal seam gas extraction has on near-surface water structures and the like. It is a real issue. They also proposed—this was outlined in a letter from the Prime Minister to me and, I presume, other Premiers—that in addition to the expert scientific committee, there would be a proposal for a national partnership on approvals. That is a whole new layer of federal bureaucracy on project approvals. Initially — Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
It is a good question and I thank the member for Geraldton for it. It seems that Rob Oakeshott is now basically controlling the agenda in Australia. He is the man who took 22 minutes to decide which side of politics he would support, and his deputy leader is Tony Windsor. The last 24 hours has been one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics. This is a policy that the Labor Party in Western Australia now formally supports. Let me just tell members what this is about. To get the support of Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor for the minerals resource rent tax, those two members raised the issue of coal seam gas in their electorate, perhaps legitimately. There is no doubt there are significant environmental issues related to coal seam gas extraction. In response, the deal that was done by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer was to recognise that there were environmental issues and they would set up an independent expert scientific committee. I have no objection to that. I think that more work should be done on the science and understanding of the impact coal seam gas extraction has on near-surface water structures and the like. It is a real issue. They also proposed—this was outlined in a letter from the Prime Minister to me and, I presume, other Premiers—that in addition to the expert scientific committee, there would be a proposal for a national partnership on approvals. That is a whole new layer of federal bureaucracy on project approvals. Initially — Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Didn’t Howard give us that with the new PBC? Haven’t we got that already? What about cockatoos? The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Initially, when I first read it, I thought they were talking about an approvals process over coal seam gas, and there may be some logic in that. However, it is not about that; it is about approvals on all extractive industries where there may be some or a projected or a possible impact on the watertable—in other words, the entire mining industry in Western Australia. This is not just about coal seam gas and petroleum or tight gas; it is about the entire extractive industry. It is now proposed that every mining project in Western Australia will have a new level of environmental approval to be funded to the tune of $250 million from the minerals resource rent tax. This is just astounding. The hapless Mr Oakeshott is now basically determining minerals and petroleum policy in Australia and is supported by the Labor government in Canberra and the Labor opposition in Western Australia. Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Maybe if Tony Abbott didn’t say no all the time, the Independents wouldn’t have so much leverage. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I know that the Leader of the Opposition supports it. He can defend his position and I will make our position. As I said, the Prime Minister wrote to each Premier outlining part of the proposal, but her letter was incomplete. She wrote a different letter to Rob Oakeshott and, I presume, Windsor and others. This was quite different in context. It explained the expert committee but then went on to make a pitch—that is what it must be seen as—again by the commonwealth government for the total control of the minerals industry in this state. That is what the resource super profits tax was all about. I will read one paragraph from the Prime Minister’s letter. It states — The Government — This is the federal government, obviously — believes that state royalties are an inefficient means of taxing our natural resources and a resource rent tax is a more efficient way of assessing the benefits of our nation’s resources for the long term. That is a takeover bid if ever I have seen one. I will not go through the arguments for and against a royalty regime versus a profits-based regime, but the federal government is saying that the mining companies do not pay enough. That is its justification for a minerals resource rent tax. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is my answer, Mr Speaker. They just assert, as Ken Henry did, that royalties are inefficient. The argument of Ken Henry and his review was that mining projects either close down or do not go ahead because of state royalties. At the time I said to him, “Name me a project.” To this day he has been unable to do so. He has been unable to name one single project that has not proceeded or has closed down because of royalties. The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The commonwealth approach, the Labor Party approach, is a profits tax. I can think of examples when companies have not made profits in the mining industry. Under that proposal they would pay nothing for the natural gas or the mineral. If there was no profit, there would be MRRT or profits-based tax; nothing would be paid. There are examples of that in the Australian mining industry. Imagine that scenario, where there was a mining project—maybe prices have fallen and they are unprofitable. Therefore, they pay no profits tax; therefore, they pay nothing for the mineral. Imagine the scenario if that is an overseas company. We would be the only country in the world giving away our natural resources. Do members call that efficient? I do not at all. It is far easier to shift a profit than it is to shift a tonne of iron ore, and that is what will happen in multinational business. What a foolish, foolish, limited approach, but the opposition supports it. But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
But it gets more sinister than that, because in an additional paragraph from the Prime Minister to Mr Oakeshott—this has been reinforced by the Treasurer—it reads — On this basis, the Government has asked that the GST distribution review look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases. For the first time in my history, we have a Prime Minister of this country threatening the states that it will penalise them. What sort of an Australian attitude is that? It is disgraceful and shameful. It is absolutely shameful that a federal Labor government is threatening the states. What it is doing is absolutely appalling. There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
There can be arguments, but if one looks at the mining industry, over 60 per cent of it is in Western Australia. Sixty-five per cent of the mineral resource rent tax revenues are to be collected from our state. Now we have Wayne Swan threatening the states that they will actually lose out on infrastructure funding. Here they go again. They are going to penalise and punish Western Australia for its success. Would it not be nice to have a federal Prime Minister and a federal Treasurer that actually put some effort into the industries or the states in trouble? What about the 3 000 jobs at risk in Whyalla? What about the 1 000 jobs that went out of Wollongong? What about Queensland, where there is a collapsed property and tourism industry and debt so high they are simply selling off any asset they can to pay the bills? What about dealing with that? No, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer want to hit Western Australia and damage and hurt this state. Why? I do not understand. What about the threat from Wayne Swan, “the world’s greatest Treasurer” apparently? World’s greatest Treasurer? He cannot look after jobs. He has no plan for manufacturing in this country, and yet he calls himself the world’s greatest Treasurer. The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The threat will cut infrastructure funding. What sort of a threat is that? It is a paper threat, because this state will pay 65 per cent of the mineral resources rent tax. Remember at the federal election the federal Labor Party promised $100 million for the Gorgon project. Treasurer, have you got the money? Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.C. Porter : No. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he has not got it. He has not seen a dollar of it—$100 million; we have not seen a dollar. Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr M. McGowan : You make it up as you go along! The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, member for Cannington, I formally call you both to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I refer to a future project, the Browse LNG project—a very important settlement of native title and support for the local Indigenous population. The Western Australian government has committed $300 million to that to help Indigenous people of that area. How much do members reckon the commonwealth has contributed? Zero; not one dollar have they pulled out of their pocket for that. I will give members another example, a little bit less direct. At the time of the Keating government, when the native title legislation was passed, the Keating government committed to meet 75 per cent — Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr E.S. Ripper : No, that was Howard. That was Howard to Court; I dealt with this. It was Howard to Court, after Wik. You’ve got it wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the Keating government — Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr D.A. Templeman : This is the biggest improvisation I’ve ever heard! The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time today. I am not interested in any more outbursts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keating government committed to fund 75 per cent of native title settlements. That was part of the grand speech about reconciliation and the like—very admirable. The Howard government confirmed that; the Gillard government has rejected it. So much for the Labor Party’s commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. It has not put one dollar into it. Only the Liberal–National government has actually put money on the table for Aboriginal reconciliation. What a fraud the Labor Party is, and what a disgrace the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer are. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today.
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.