Pssst? Heard about the good tax? Hopefully after the release of the Henry Tax Review this weekend you will.

Don't think of it as a mine, but a revenue stream.

It’s called the Resource Rent Tax and, for those of us who want to see the development of frontier mining towns into sustainable communities, it is a thing of beauty.

It is always reassuring to hear the mining industry cry poor when new ideas are put forward to share the benefits of the resource boom.

While the big companies and their lobbyists are sharpening their tongue to decry a new ‘tax’ the rest of Australia should be hoping that a new tax is exactly what emerges from the Henry Tax Review.

The tax is called the Resource Rent Tax and, for those of us who want to see the development of frontier mining towns into sustainable communities, it is a thing of beauty.

It works like this.

It is an “extra” tax levied on the “additional” profits that a firm makes because it has been given exclusive or privileged access to a limited resource - in this case the minerals owned by the Australian public.

A firm can make super or excess profits from mining because not everyone has access to the mineral resource. That is, there are only a certain amount of mineral reserves (though more does tend to be found) and the government allocates leases to only a small number of players. Further, there are other “barriers to entry” in that most firms lack the scale and expertise to get into mining.

Economic theory holds that if any industry is making excess profits (over the “normal” rate of profit of somewhere in the order of 8-15%) then competitors will enter the industry, and keep entering, until profits fall to the long-term normal rate.

But in mining the combination of government regulation and other barriers to entry can mean that there are only a few players, their output is less than perfectly responsive to market demand, they command a premium price and they make super profits.

These super profits can be taxed heavily by government without affecting the investment decisions of the few players, because they will continue to invest, and keep existing operations going, as long as they make at least a normal profit.

This is therefore an effective tax for governments to deploy, as the tax revenue is collected without (in theory) adversely affecting the level of economic activity in the industry.

Of course the mining companies will cry poor – but right now they have huge profit margins and are making billions of dollars from Australia. The existing royalties they pay are a minor part of their expenditures. And the income tax they pay? At most it is the same as other industries, even though most other industries do not get the benefit of privileged access to Australia’s public assets – its mineral resources.

The Resource Rent Tax is a crafty instrument – it is calculated on profits, on the success of a venture.

With all projections pointing to massive increases in the resource sector over the next 30 years, the tax has the potential to bring in billions of dollars of additional revenue each year – while still allowing mining companies to make large profits. Remember – it’s only a tax on profits above and beyond a generous threshold.

This will have two clear benefits to Australia.

First, in development of mining communities – it can provide a revenue stream that should have a significant chunk devoted to the rural and remote regions from where it came. Mining towns are all too often desperate and deprived places – not enough housing, schools, hospitals, playing fields, swimming pools and other community infrastructure. A Resource Rent Tax can and should improve the social infrastructure of mining towns – something mining companies stopped doing for two decades and have only recommenced in recent years in a piecemeal and inadequate effort to retain more workers.

Secondly, and just as importantly, the income from a Resource Rent Tax can be the basis of a broad sovereign wealth fund – a way of transforming wealth in the ground to long-term wealth above the ground. A source of wealth that can exist for generations after the minerals are gone – providing assets and income for future Australians in this century and the next.

Critically any decision needs to be made quickly. This shouldn’t be a debate that goes on forever. Mining communities need certainty, and businesses need investment certainty.

The Henry Review is an opportunity to be visionary in the way we build our nation. The presence of one good tax – the Resource Rent Tax – would show it is meeting this challenge.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

43 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • John A Neve says:

      06:35am | 29/04/10

      Sadly a “Resource Rent Tax” does not address the real issue, which is our taxation system is a mess.

      What is the point of shoring up something with a rotten foundation?
      We have so many taxes it is hard to get your head around them. How many people know just how much in every dollar they earn goes in tax.

      What is required is an open and fulsome taxation debate, not more add ons and tinkering.

    • Jack Thomas says:

      11:15am | 29/04/10

      How very surprising NOT?!

      Labor and its financial patron the Unions come up with more taxes, which means more regulation, which means more bureaucratic jobs for their mates.

      Funny that the pathetic whine under Howard from these big money Unions was “ohh, Howard is just riding the resources boom..” and now you’re looking at ways to milk it more than anyone.

      How amusing to hear a Union boss quote ‘economic theory’ then fail to even recognise the concept of risk and reward or even outline what the “barriers to entry” are.

      You talk about ‘the government’ but fail to mention these are your mates, the guys you funded into office. Forget the corporate dollar, union funding of Labor in its election campaigns, including the union media scare campaigns, is astronomical but never raised by the media.

      When you say government allocates leases to only a small number of players, are you suggesting your Labor mates are running a closed shop or is there some way they can give the same lease to several miners?

      Unions and Labor = TAX, TAX and more TAX.

      If it moves tax it.

      If it’s got carbon, tax it.

      Even if you promised not to at the last election, tax it.

    • Shifter says:

      01:02pm | 29/04/10

      Wasn’t the GST supposed to simplify taxation?

    • Union member says:

      05:46pm | 17/06/10

      I’m curious to know what Tony Maher ‘s personel wealth currently is?

    • DougB says:

      07:00am | 29/04/10

      Well written Tony. Putting some of those massive profits back into communities would be a fantastic step.  I’ve worked in remote mining towns since 1979, and we have just seen repeatedly the companies who are reaping the profits, withdrawing all responsibility for those towns in the name of more profit.
      We have witnessed the deaths of festivals, as companies no longer sponser the external attractions like sideshows and highpriced entertainers to travel 800km off the beaten track. These costs can no be borne by a small community of 2000-4000 working people.
      The deaths of sporting clubs as they lose facilities to unsustainable maintenance/building costs and players to ridiculous rosters which cripple them socially and physically.
      I’d like to take it further and say they should putting some of those profits into removing FIFO rosters, and establishing new towns and opening up Australia.  It is also healthier for a family to be a whole unit instead of having dad/mum there for 8 days in every 4-6 weeks.
      It also opens up more employment opportunites as people are needed to work in the services, hospitality and other associated industries.
      Stop shipping Billions of dollars offshore and into the pockets of a few, and Grow Australia.

    • Chew says:

      11:32am | 29/04/10

      The basic concept is fine, but to introduce more tax and more regulation is just another typical Labor and Union 2020 style thought bubble.

      Rudd’s insulation disaster was probably pretty good on paper too.

      How about giving the local Councils the power here? They’re the ones who need the cash and know where it should be spent.

      I reckon most mining co’s would rather have an accessible workforce, not have to house and feed their workers or operate the FIFO rosters.

      Unfortunately, the vast majority of Union leaders and Labor MP’s have never had real jobs. Never worked for themselves or in a commercial role anywhere. They are just public service type bureacrats who think more and more bureacrcy is good for us.

      Giving more taxes to these Labor types is not going to be money well spent. Just like the schools fiasco, the billion dollar cost to fix up the insulation debacle, Labor will just suck up the tax dollars.

      By the way, you talk about mining company profits as if they are all owned by some fat rich b@stard, did you not realise everyday workers’ super is invariably invested in them? Profits (and losses) by Mining Co’s are reflected in their share price, the owners of the shares are usually super funds are they not?

    • Ken Manton says:

      05:43pm | 02/05/10

      You really think the government will use the money to improve local mining communities? Yeah! right!!!  Oh, some of it may go to pay the unemployment benefits of the workers that the miners lay off to reduce expenses, but the rest will be poured into that mysterious pit called “consolidated revenue”, and will never see the light of day except in parliamentary rorts

    • Gerard says:

      08:13am | 29/04/10

      Nice talk Tony but we have seen decades of big business calling the shots over the major parties and PAYE continuing to foot most of the tax bill in Australia. Why should Labor or the LIbs under the thumb of the miners listen to Henry?

    • Hamish says:

      09:13am | 29/04/10

      This article is a joke. Mining is Australia’s most competitive international industry. Why on earth would someone want to make it less competitive by taxing it over and above other companies? Mining companies already pay mining royalties to state governments. What would happen to them? I imagine the states wouldn’t just give them up. Is the idea that the feds would tax over and above these royalties? How is that fair? How is that a good idea in the context of the global economy? Africa and Russia might start looking a lot more attractive in the context of punitive taxation in Australia.

    • W. says:

      10:07am | 29/04/10

      I have said it many times and I will continue to say it:

      Very few people are aware that China earns more through taxation imposed upon Australian commodity imports than the Australian government earns from taxing our exports.

      I, as an Australian citizen would like to see parity in relation to these taxes.

    • Hamish says:

      10:45am | 29/04/10

      Why? What’s the relevance of China’s taxation regime?

    • W. says:

      12:06pm | 29/04/10

      Why should China earn more from OUR resources than we do?
      Why can’t we as Australians earn the same as them?

      It is after all OUR DIRT we are shipping over there and yet they are making more from it than us in the first instance.

      They then charge Australians to cover their taxes when they begin shipping it back to us as their exports.

    • John A Neve says:

      12:22pm | 29/04/10

      W,
      Says “Why should China earn more from OUR resources than we do?”
      Easy, it’s called value adding, the Chinese make some thing we don’t,
      most of our manufactoring industry went off shore years ago.

      It was the same with wool, it went overseas as wool and came back a garments, any one remember Fletcher Jones or Gloweave?

      What great governments this country has had, put them all in a bag shake it and tip it out, you’d still have rubbish.

    • Hamish says:

      12:26pm | 29/04/10

      W.,

      I’m sorry I don’t understand your logic. The Chinese pay the mining companies for the resources, so they are paying for our dirt. If the Chinese want to charge import duties, that’s their business. All increasing taxes on mining will do is make our companies less competitive and/or profitable. The Chinese won’t remove their import duties just because we increase mining taxes.

    • W. says:

      01:13pm | 29/04/10

      China is getting 2 bites of the Australian resource “cherry”.

      1) They earn more from our resouces than we do before “value adding”.

      2) They make Australians PAY for that very same “value adding” by charging Australians to cover the taxes in 1).

      Do you not see how we lose twice?

      I am not saying China should decrease their import duties, far from it.

      I am advocating that Australia should take an equal size bite initially.

    • W. says:

      01:55pm | 29/04/10

      @ Hamish
      “All increasing taxes on mining will do is make our companies less competitive and/or profitable.”

      I’m sorry but I think you are wrong.

      If Australia was to introduce a tax that remains automatically equal to the Chinese import duties then that tax may even drive prices down.

      For instance:

      If China was to increase their import duties on Australian commodities because of any new Australian tax but the Australian tax automatically matched the Chinese tax then the Chinese would be pricing “themselves” out of the market.

      A commodity tax that remains “in parity” with the Chinese import duties tax may even force prices down over the longer term and make Australian mining companies MORE profitable.

      All the while Australia would benefit through the increased revenue.

    • chris says:

      09:29am | 29/04/10

      Tony,

      The key word in your aticle was ‘should’. The revenue from this new tax ‘should’ go back to the communities. I can guarantee you that this will not occur. The revenue gerenated will go back to the big central bucket to be squandered elsewhere. How do you think this current government is going to fund its promises?

    • Fen says:

      09:42am | 29/04/10

      My issue is what happends after 20 years, 50 years, 150 years….whats left ?

      We are having a massive population increase so the time is now to get the mining companies to start improving infastructure in rural areas.

      Towns in rural Australia have gone thru massive change thru mining, health has decreased, house and rent prices have risen. Just ask the people of Hunter Valley or along the Warrego Hwy?

    • AdamC says:

      09:44am | 29/04/10

      8-15% of what constitutes ‘normal’ profit? I assume it is capital employed, but you could be a little more specific.

      I see two problems with this. One, additional taxes will reduce the ‘blue sky’ potential of new projects, which will make mining companies less likely to take them on. (I understand most big resources companies have a 15% return hurdle for new projects.)

      The second problem is that it will make government tax receipts more volatile over the cycle. It is a fool’s assumption to believe that commodity prices are not subject to economic gravity.

      In general, I don’t agree with the typically western welfare socialist idea of needing to loot every private industry that turns a decent dollar. It is best for your members that the real mining boom (that is, one based on production, not just purple patch pricing) continues. Of course, many ideologues are happy to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs simply to spite the evil capitalist that owns it.

    • Economist says:

      12:10pm | 29/04/10

      Agreed, logically they will pay more tax anyway on the super profits, all they’‘ll do is down grade their profits to avoid the tax. There is no logic to charge this industry an addtional tax, particuarly if an ETS is eventually introduced. This would effectively mean that we’d be hitting these organisations up four times, royalties, corporate tax, resource tax and ETS.

      Adam C regarding the other blog I’ll get to it soon.

    • Justin Turner says:

      09:44am | 29/04/10

      When we have a 12 month stretch with absolutely zero reports of state & federal governments wasting thousands of millions of dollars, then maybe we can look at expanding the taxation base. Until that happens, they can’t demonstrate that they can effectively use what they collect, so they shouldn’t be allowed to take any more.

    • Shifter says:

      03:14pm | 29/04/10

      It’s a nice thought but it seems like a bit of a pipe dream. There will always be tales of ministers travel rorts, exhorbitant salaries, or chair sniffing.

      It might also be a case of being careful for what you wish. The government will definitely need a commitee to investigate expenditure, and they’ll need at least $90 million worth of funding over the next few years.

    • Shannon says:

      10:41am | 29/04/10

      My main issue with this is claiming that mineral resources belong to all Australians. Okay, but if you’re going to use that argument, tax payers should have to foot the bill for buying the mining equipment and paying the miners for their labour. Using this logic, anything that occurs naturally belongs to all Australians. So farmers of Aus, be prepared for a tax hike, because even though you own the land, anything that grows on it belongs to us. But don’t expect us to pay for your tractors! This is nothing more than greedy, self-centered, jealous Australians wanting a slice of the resources pie (something for nothing). Buy some shares if you want to make money from the resources sector, and stop expecting companies that have spent billions on investments to give you a handout!

    • Mavis says:

      11:41am | 29/04/10

      Good reasoning Shannon. Many of us have the same disdain for the envy politics brigade.

    • Shifter says:

      03:23pm | 29/04/10

      The difference here is the farmers generally own the land on which they farm.

      Mining companies generally lease the land with the view that it is restored after mining and available for other use. They make profit from what they remove from the land without actively owning it. Hence the entitlement of the State Governments to royalties.

      It’s debatable whether there is excess profits being made through increased exclusivity to these resources, and if so it should also be debatable who is entitled to these profits. I raise the question, why should the South Eastern states benefit from Queensland and Western Australia’s mining industries?

    • CSallen says:

      11:02am | 29/04/10

      I have a feeling that the federal government passing this kind of legislation through would cause Western Australia to go one step closer to succession.

    • Jeff M says:

      11:27am | 29/04/10

      Western Australians are sure different in ideas to the rest of Aus. There is a great big divide. It would be a shame if they succede from the rest of Australia but if they are so hell bent on it, let them go!!! but they should be totally on their own, with no support from the rest of us

    • Tom says:

      11:53am | 29/04/10

      My father was a WA succesionist and told me that in 1933 he had handed out secesionist pamphlets. I used to laugh at him. I don’t laugh now.

      To Jeff M, “support from the rest of us”, I doubt they would place much value on that “support”. Get real. They are the dog and we are the flea.

    • CSallen says:

      12:35pm | 29/04/10

      Jeff- if you look at the amount of resource revenue that comes from WA you would change your tune. Currently WA has 10% of the nation’s population and accounts for over 35% of the resource income generated in Australia. they do not really need the rest of Australia to prop them up and they know it- easily seen in the way Rudd could not intimidate Colin Barnett over the health reform. 30% of WA’s GST is simply too much to pay for them to prop up the rest of Australia. Especially when you consider how much of a drain NSW is on the rest of the states in this instance.

    • Matt Stewart says:

      03:22pm | 29/04/10

      CSallen - not to mention the way the GST is distributed in the first place.

      WA has 10.24% of the population and is the fastest growing state at 2.9%pa as of September 2009 .  In 2009/10 they will receive 8.1% of the total GST revenue and in 2010/11 this will fall to 7.1%.  For every dollar Western Australia contributes in 2010/11, 68 cents will go back to the state.  No wonder Barnett is refusing to give up an additional 30% - that would leave the state with 47.5 cents in every dollar it contributes.

    • Anjuli says:

      11:35am | 29/04/10

      Does that mean that the Nationals who have balance of power in WA will not need the 300milion they take out of WA budget for regional development.

    • Andrew says:

      11:56am | 29/04/10

      So do the big miners get their infrastructure and development costs paid for?

      This tax grab will immediately hurt all Australians. Every person who has money in Super will lose value. Every super fund portfolio has a significant exposure to the mining sector. Share price will plunge.

      This is simply another Labor/Union move to redistribute wealth away from the private sector into the public purse where they can use it to pay for their wastrel policies and welfare state.

      There are $195 billion in developments in the immediate pipeline in W.A. not to mention Qld or S.A. Look at the massive Gorgon project $30+ billion. This government clearly has no idea about the law of unintended consequences. They are playing with fire and refuse to learn from their mistakes.

      Voting in Labor and their union controllers is the perfect way to destroy an economy and a competitive market. It will take along time to recover.

    • John A Neve says:

      03:48pm | 29/04/10

      Andrew,
      While I understand what you are saying and agree this proposed tax would filter through to shareholders.

      The fact is the electorate, in fact all Australians are demanding more from government. Tax is governments prime source of income. So short of my preferred option (FBT), where do you suggest increased revenue comes from?

    • Andrew says:

      09:48pm | 29/04/10

      Maybe streamline the public service and run it like a business. Should save a few bob.

    • Free Market says:

      01:28pm | 29/04/10

      Interesting article from the CFMEU. Miners make too much money lets get it! I wonder how your members feel about this? From what I hear the CFMEU is very unpopular with mine workers in W.A.

      Just another socialist power play from Comrade Rudd and his union puppeteers.

    • acker says:

      01:40pm | 29/04/10

      I agree with this and I agree with the WA National party’s 25% of royalties getting paid back to regions. If this tax was in during the wool boom 1910 - 1970 many rural communities would not be in such trouble now. And cities would be more community freindly sizes. Harbor Bridge & Opera House were mainly funded by wool…Flinders Street Station was mainly funded by Goldfeilds Gold…etc

    • Andrew says:

      01:54pm | 29/04/10

      Mr Maher’s grasp of economic theory is adolescent at best. Super profits tax?

      So let me get this right. A company risks capital by raising funds from the capital markets or by using existing capital to develop an asset that employs people and generates both economic activity and taxation revenue together with dividends paid to shareholders. Because this profit exceeds your arbitrary reasonable profit level of 8-15% (8% are you kidding?) they ought to attract an extra levy/tax from government.

      This is a tax on success. Typical Labor/union politics of envy.

      Have you ever heard of the law of unintended consequences? Clearly the Rudd government has not.

      This proposed tax will limit development and cause massive share price drops in the resources sector (any of your members got money in super funds?).

      As for barriers to entry, well guess what you just created 2. Firstly potential investors in mineral/resources companies will flinch at the idea that if their company does too well they will be penalised and secondly you will in one fell swoop significantly increase the perception of sovereign risk of doing business in or investing in Australia.

      As for current barriers to entry in getting into mining .. pfft .. what a load of BS. How many mining and exploration companies have entered the industry in the last 10 years? What about FMG, Arrow Energy, McArthur Coal? The list is as long as a socialist arm reaching into a successful man’s pocket.

      As for making frontier mining towns sustainable, oh yeah. How do you intend to do that. Build a new school library? Put Pink batts into every house? Start a car factory? Build a multi function polis? C’mon.

      Hey, why stop at resources? If the benchmark is 8-15% why not super tax every company in Australia that makes a profit over 15%? Banks, finance companies, property trusts, farmers, builders, electricians, mine services companies? Or we could make the corporate tax system the same as the personal tax system the more you make the more you pay. Ever heard of encouraging mediocrity?

      This article is a ridiculous socialist attempt to justify wealth redistribution. To take profits from well run companies and place them in the hands of the most inefficient spenders on earth, the Rudd Government.

      Funny part is your members ought to hang draw and quarter you for supporting such a ludicrous tax.

      Problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.

    • Matt Stewart says:

      02:53pm | 29/04/10

      “But in mining the combination of government regulation and other barriers to entry can mean that there are only a few players, their output is less than perfectly responsive to market demand, they command a premium price and they make super profits.”

      So what your saying is, government interference creates super profits and the best response is more government interference?  How about we try LESS government interference for a little while and see how that works?

      If you want to impose a tax on resources campanies for so called super profits, guess who will be knocking on your door for corporate welfare when markets aren’t quite so bright.

      If you want to help remote areas, how about a tax break for people that live outside of Australia’s cities.  That will also help solve the crowding issues that have been so prominent in the media recently.  Better to just give a tax break than to take money from them with one hand and give it back with other.

    • Budz says:

      05:16pm | 29/04/10

      Tony, on an unrelated topic, how do you justify wasting your CFMEU members hard earned money on sponsoring the Canberra Raiders? What is the logic behind that? Does every member get free travel and entry to the game or is having you guys as a sponsor make it easier for the bigwigs to get chummy with your favourite Raiders players?

    • Darryl Price says:

      06:02pm | 29/04/10

      Say goodbye to a lot of jobs. Then again the unions stopped being about job security years ago

    • Andrew says:

      09:24am | 02/05/10

      If people want to share in the benefits of the resource boom then simple by resource company shares!.. Most have super in these already.  And a resource tax is simply an inefficient transfer of wealth from those who save and risk their capital to those who dont… its typical labour policy to tax success in the name of “fairness”... And if any of this money flows to general government coffers and is not stored in a sovereign wealth fund then this will truly be a corrupt policy.  Henry you are socialist, and you will eventually run out of cash and fail.

    • jack says:

      04:36pm | 02/05/10

      i have shares in mining companies (Bhp Billiton) who does this help me?

    • Peter says:

      09:10pm | 02/05/10

      And when the ore has been all mined,  we will have a big hole and the Labor Parrty has spent it all and got us into DEEP debt.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter