I was at a pub a couple of weeks ago and a friend asked my prediction about the election. Not much into making predictions I speculated that Abbott would do better than anyone expected and the ALP were running a campaign that could ruin them. One of my other friends jumped in and said, ‘it’s the tax, the mining tax, the idiots should never tax the one thing that makes us rich’.

The new gang of four: Windsor, Oakeshott, Bandt and Katter.

An interesting debate followed that only ended when someone reminded me that it was ‘my shout’. Being a Saturday night and with the footy on the big screen, I think we simultaneously decided that this discussions about tax do not make for an ideal night out.

While the country remains in political limbo and the power brokers are cutting deals, the mining tax is one of those issues that seem to be bubbling below the service.

Given that the ALP are bruised and battered from the campaign and the Coalition promised to ‘axe the tax’, how should the Independents deal with the proposed Mining Super Profits Tax?

Despite the fear campaign of the mining lobby and the accusations that the tax would turn us into a socialist haven, Julia Gillard has said that she won’t back away from the tax. This is a welcome sign as it is an important reform that needs to be seen through and implemented appropriately.

The question is whether there is room for improvement and whether the Greens, who support resource rents, can encourage the Independents to push this along and as well as ensuring the potential ALP government review its structure with the aim of longer-term benefits to Australia. With independent Rob Oakeshott promoting a more collegial approach between the two parties and Tony Abbott himself agreeing that this would be a good thing, there is even a possibility that the Coalition could be convinced that such a tax would be in Australia’s national interest.

Mining, like most industries, has both an upside and downside. While the economic benefits do flow into the community in the short term, we should not forget that the environmental consequences are severe, nor the fact that mining exports drive up the exchange rate and making other Australian industries less competitive on the international stage – a process that has been described as ‘Dutch Disease’. The result is that all our economic eggs are placed in one basket posing a real threat to our long-term economic security.

The Independents should make certain the resource super profits tax be pursued as it would provide an important opportunity to ensure that the benefits gained are shared more broadly while minimising the negative impacts.

Why would I argue this?

Contemporary Australian governments seem to be confused over their role in managing our economy. While tax cuts are great for funding overseas holidays, there is the need to adequately fund the very things that allow our community to function: roads, schools, hospitals, police, lifeguards - the list goes on.

Despite this, successive Australian governments have ignored infrastructure investment – with the National Broadband Network the first real venture in decades. The Howard Government made an art form of this introducing politically expedient tax cuts ahead of any long term planning. This was particularly the case during the initial mining boom where, according to former ANZ Chief Economist and now with the Grattan Institute, Saul Eslake, Howard instigated tax cuts that squandered the $283 billion in windfall gains.

Simultaneously, we seem to be seeling of our most valuable resources like we were running a garage sale. From water rights to minerals, the policy seems to written by special interest groups who access resources for basement level prices.

Consequently, if we sum up the resource policy mix of Australia, it looks like this: giving away money we can ill-afford while cheaply flogging off the family silver.

It is for this reason that the Independents should revisit the Henry Tax Review including the mining tax and attempt to understand what is the fair value of our finite resources.

One way to do this is to introduce the proposed resource super profits tax: which is an example of a resource rent tax placed on the ‘excess’ profits from selling mineral resources. The petroleum resource rent tax was developed in the 1980s to tax the North West Shelf oil and gas developments and extended to Bass Strait in the 1990s. It is a progressive tax in that it applies to ‘excess’ profit: the greater the profit the higher the tax paid. Importantly, it does not act as a disincentive to investments despite what the mining industry lobbyists’ claims as it only kicks beyond ordinary earnings.

The question we must answer is how can the resource tax be improved?

Key here is a National Resources Fund that not only focuses on improving infrastructure but is also about the future of the Australian community. This was the fundamental flaw in the original Rudd/Swan announcement: despite directing $700 million raised towards infrastructure, they provided no evidence that the resource rent tax will be directed towards investment into Australia’s future.

Such a National Resources Fund would be managed by the Future Fund with proceeds split: most flowing into an sovereign account that would ensure help stabilise the Australian dollar to a more realistic level, while the rest would be invested in community services including low-carbon technologies, education, health and transport.

We can turn to Norway’s Petroleum Fund (NPF) for evidence that such schemes work. The NPF manages the large (and often variable income) from the oil boom to ensure benefits to future generations. Annually, around 5 per cent of the income from this fund is used for budgetary purposes, most is held overseas to ensure the exchange rate does not become overvalued not does the economy overheat.

In addition, the money could flow into providing appropriate compensation for particular regions and local communities that now carry the risks and burdens from mining. In addition to the pressure on the resources of small towns, we also need to recognise that mining has real adverse health and environmental impacts these communities – they should be compensated appropriately. Ignoring the issue means that we are treating large parts of Australia as a quarry.

In this way, the Independents could promote the current proposal drafted by the Australian Greens to use the funds to secure the longer-term economic health of our nation while ensuring a more equitable spread of the windfalls.

42 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Faul Kinell says:

      07:10am | 27/08/10

      Interesting you can put a figure of $283 billion out there, squandered in the Liberal-Howard years. It was quite a shock to see that but I guess we were all fooled by pitiful minor tax cuts ( I remember the cynical burger & mikshake one) which should have been used to build critical infrastructure of the nation like the NBN. All those years and money wasted, and lets not forget the endless cost of a war we did’nt need to be in, still going on now!

    • Giles says:

      08:10am | 27/08/10

      I think private citizens can allocate capital alot better than governments. If people want solar panels, insulation, broadband etc. they will buy them. Governments are inherently wasteful entities. Essentially you are arguing you would have preferred $283 billion wasted rather than put to efficent good use in the private sector. The NBN is a complete furphy. The only reason you need fibre optic out in the bush is to pirate HD movies in less than half an hour. Wireless is perfectly capable for regular usage and it would still be cheaper to subsidise every really remote community/household with satellite. I think it all comes down to lazy individuals who earn meagre wages wanting to steal money from harder workers providing services and jobs to said people. By the way there are so many minerals in this country you would not believe. Whose to say the windfall is being “wasted”. Why is that? Just because it isn’t all being handed out in dole checks or spent on grand and wasteful government spending? Or philandering to some rediculous environmental cause? What a joke.

    • The Badger says:

      09:01am | 27/08/10

      “The only reason you need fibre optic out in the bush is to pirate HD movies in less than half an hour.”

      That may be the only use you see for the NBN, but the rest of us aren’t so myopic.

      It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them.
        Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais

    • Reg says:

      09:13am | 27/08/10

      Giles, as an example, wireless internet does not even work well in the Northern suburbs of Sydney, let alone in the bush, although no-one will tell you about it.

      Namely, Vodaphone (Optus) and chunks of Castle Hill. There are plenty of contracts with NO internet service under this private enterprise scheme. Private citizens are not known for revealing their failures because that’s what they are, PRIVATE, while government is NOT.

      If we want to compare the two properly, then let’s knock down the wall of privacy around these companies because I’ve been to both and I can assure you that private companies are more wasteful because the boss does the accounting. They simply add the loss onto the bill.and don’t try and tell me they won’t get away with it, because they do.  All the sharks are in private business.

    • godinpump says:

      09:23am | 27/08/10

      So you think that the private sector will build roads, schools, hospitals, telecommunications, water resources and everything else our society needs to function? And who gets the benefit of these things? Everyone or just the ingrained elite few that can afford them?

      Not that we’d want to create second class citizens with no access to the things that will help them along….....or do you?

      The mining tax will benefit us in more ways than the mining companies are willing to admit. Primarily, it can be used to fund public infrastructure that will benefit EVERYONE so that we can all progress.

      A society that continually and habitually alienates a growing segment of that society goes downhill pretty quickly. Or is history not an effective lesson for you?

    • kayte says:

      10:01am | 27/08/10

      Giles is correct.  It is a solid economic truth that the private sector, left to run itself, produces more fair and efficient results than the government.  The governments role can be to stimulate the private sector to operate in the nations best interests, through tax concessions and advertising.

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:06am | 27/08/10

      Wow Giles your getting pummelled here:

      @ badger, Name 2 advantages of super fast broadband and stop using quotes at the end of your comments. Its not a god damn calender

      @ Reg, what basis is your assurance that private companies are more wasteful? Your clinging at straws, the issue with government spending is that there is no reward for efficiency. If a government department comes under budget they lose that funding.

      @ GodinPump, yes the private sector will build whatever it needs to survive. But the government has a role to play, and I doubt Giles was suggesting an elimination of government. However expecting government to do a good job outside its core responsibilities and naive at best. Let them build the roads, schools, hospitals and look after defence but 43 billion on an infrastructure project that is definately not needed is insane.

    • TimB says:

      10:21am | 27/08/10

      Badger, provide an example then. An example, not a quote.

      Something we can ONLY do with the NBN that we can’t do right now. And something beyond “do it faster”.

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:57am | 27/08/10

      @Kayte - “Giles is correct.  It is a solid economic truth that the private sector, left to run itself, produces more fair and efficient results than the government”

      Kayte - could you explain to us all then how then we arrived at the current 3rd world standard telecommunications system we now currently ‘enjoy’ due to Private Enterprise? Under Private Enterprise we now have several hundred thousand families and businesses stuck on RIMs because it was far cheaper for Telstra to roll them out in new subdivisions since the mid 90’s. Lets move on from Broadband and take a look at other industries shall we? Private Enterprise water? New to SE Qld and now we are going to be paying up to 4 times more for the same water and infrastructure we already have - at what benefit? None. How about Power? Since being privatised instead of ‘providing competition’ like we were promised its a competition to see who can extort more from the average punter.

      The actual maxim should: Left to itself Private Enterprise will do the cheapest job that returns the most amount of profit - with service, quality and performance distant considerations.

      @Giles - broadband is only for movies? Get back in your Liberal approved box. Decent broadband would enable more and business and services to decentralise for starters. You would get people moving out of the cities and providing badly needed jobs in regional and rural areas. Rural and Regional businesses would also have better access to not only national but also global markets. And that snot even touching on the benefits to education, medical etc sectors

      AND you’ll be able to download more porn faster.

    • Zaf says:

      10:58am | 27/08/10

      [the private sector, left to run itself, produces more fair and efficient results than the government. ]

      Kayte, the Private Sector, left to itself, produces things that turn a financial profit.  This may not always be the best thing for a society.  Look at the US, that heartland of capitalism, for eg.  The US National Highway network is an amazing piece of infrastructure, most of it is publicly funded and free to drive on. (By law there must be a free alternative to ALL tollways in the US.  Did you know that?)  Needless to say, free highways don’t turn a profit, but they do contribute significantly to the creation of US national wealth.

      Otoh, the US Health Care system (overhwelmingly privately funded) certainly turns a profit, but it retards the growth of US national wealth by being both expensive and ineffective, in terms of keeping the population healthy and productive.

      Not saying that private always ineffective, public always better, just pointing out that it’s horses for courses, being ideological about it doesn’t deliver the goods.

    • The Badger says:

      11:22am | 27/08/10

      If you are serious about getting a glimpse of the possibilities of the NBN,
      spend some here.

      http://www.broadbandfuture.gov.au/webcasts.html#de

      Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler..
      Albert Einstein

    • DocBud says:

      11:57am | 27/08/10

      @ TheRealDave,

      Telstra, and QLD water, power supply are all monopolies created by government. Most of us who run private businesses do so in a competitive market and have to deliver a quality product or service at a competitive price or our customers go elsewhere.

    • Reg says:

      12:01pm | 27/08/10

      Zaf, the US highway and bridge networks are in a dreadful state because of lack of repair and update.

      Private business is also inherently wasteful without any possibility of checking because of their private status. They work on cost plus and the higher the cost the bigger the plus.They are a majoy part of inflation. $700 for six tap washers that failed within weeks. The call-back was exceedingly embarrassing for the company but they still demanded their money.The pool company with a bill of $5500 to cart and dump the over-burden, or $3000 IN THE HAND.

    • Reg says:

      12:11pm | 27/08/10

      Not in the big city Doc where the really BIG market is. Return customers are not needed because there are lots more to fleece. A crap product can make a fortune on the first sales without repeat customers. Then the company changes its name. See if YOU can find the mob that did your bathroom renovations with an ELEVEN year guarantee. Gone within six months.

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:22pm | 27/08/10

      @DocBud - proving my point about the building of Infrastructure. If there is no immediate profit in it then Private Business want nothing to do with it. National Infrastructure - the kind that benefits us ALL, yes our two headed rural cousins, can only be built by the government.

      As for benefits of the NBN:

      Access costs for starters. Take a look at what business is paying right now for simple 4mb up/down connections via Telstra, over $4000 PER MONTH. I don’t deal with the bigger end of town that are currently using 10 and 100mb connections but I could only guess I’d faint if I knew how much they were currently spending. So the NBN will eradicate that extortionate pricing. Next, its that increase in upload speeds thats going to allow real time voice and video in a lot better quality than we have right now. We can start having real virtual classrooms, business can fully embrace video conferencing instead of flying people around the country. We have the tools for it - its just the quality of our connections holding us up. I did some IT work for a company around 2002 I think it was…and they were already building remote medical diagnostic hardware. Basically a box that plugged into your network. And you could plug into it medical equipment to measure blood pressure, heartbeat, temperature etc and it fed that live data over the net to someone at the other end who could read the results. That was 8 years ago on an ADSL1 connection. Imagine the benefits to rural people, and when I say rural I mean the people hours away from a doctors surgery with a more modern communications network? Sure they aren’t going to have fibre running to their house, but they will connect to an Exchange somewhere that will have great big bundles of fibre running to all the other Exchanges nationwide. They talk to their doctor who gets test results in near real time. The Doc is sitting in a country town with good fast access thanks to the NBN and he can talk in real time with a specialist in a capital city sharing test results that are near new and not weeks old. The specialist can even talk with the patient no matter where they are in Australia etc Things like this are near impossible today with what we have now. How about school of the air gone forever and replaced with virtual classrooms with teachers in capital cities. We all know its tough to get teachers heading out to remote area’s or getting adequate resources for rural schools, the NBN can help with that as well.

      Its not just the city that benefits from the NBN - we all will. As I said - you won’t get fibre out to your farm, but your connection will connect to an exchange that will have far better backhaul than it does now. People in rural and regional towns will get better speeds and access. People in metro areas will be taken off RIMs and blackspots and join the rest of us. Businesses will be able to cut costs and have far greater speeds to take advantage of new communications methods and better connectivity between sites.

      Its a huge investment. There’s no arguing there. But its a great investment that not only you and I will take advantage of but also our great great grandchildren 50, 60 years form now.

    • godinpump says:

      01:56pm | 27/08/10

      @Adam Diver

      The private sector will NOT build whatever it needs to survive. It will use existing infrastructure and analyse whether it can make money with their business model. For example, a delivery company will not build a road to a customer’s house. Nor will it build a better car. It will use what exists already and determine whether it can make money by delivering goods, alone.

      This is why the government is necessary. It is there to build public goods so that we can ALL prosper.

      The NBN is similar to this. It will create a communications backbone of world class standards on which many businesses and communities can base their own businesses. Business can facilitate more efficient meetings in real time. Hospitals can transmit data and make diagnoses in real time with better efficiency.

    • kayte says:

      07:09pm | 27/08/10

      The Real Dave: You are correct.  My hasty comment has misrepresented me.  I am enormously proud of all our government institutions, healthcare in particular is fantastic in this country, I am grateful for it truely.  And because of australia’s unique logisitical situation telecommunications and infrastructure must be government funded, and under government jurisdiction, and built in co operation with private industries.  I was supporting Giles, as he did correctly state that the private industry and individuals will get better VALUE out of every dollar they spend.  Economically speaking that is, not neccessarily ethically speaking….  That is a notion which can be argued many ways using economic theory.

    • Super D says:

      08:18am | 27/08/10

      The most blatant flaw in your argument is that the ALP have already spent the proceeds of the mining tax.  This is why they won’t get rid of it and this is why there will not be a sovereign fund of any scale.

    • Reg says:

      08:49am | 27/08/10

      What is it about “collegial approach” that has such a dramatic influence on brother Tony?  Did anyone check for finger-crossing?

    • Tedd says:

      08:57am | 27/08/10

      I’ve been wondering if the Independents have been encouraged too much already and become a bit to big for their boots, and the photo attached to this article helps me make up my mind.

    • DocBud says:

      09:15am | 27/08/10

      “While tax cuts are great for funding overseas holidays, there is the need to adequately fund the very things that allow our community to function: roads, schools, hospitals, police, lifeguards - the list goes on.”

      Such a puerile and simplistic argument, tax cuts stop the sick getting treatment, does you no credit, James, perhaps you should stick to debates down the pub. Please feel free to make “the list go on”. I’d include: having nine parliaments, funding talentless artists who’d otherwise have to get a proper job, subsidising green initiatives to make the industries behind them “viable” and making sure there is enough money in the kitty to pork barrel in the marginals.

      As Giles points out above, governments are not efficient spenders of other people’s money, which is why they should be given the responsibility of spending as little of it as is absolutely necessary, Here is an article by an economist which might help you understand the issue a bit better:

      http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/taxing_growth.htm

      “we should not forget that the environmental consequences are severe,”

      Nice bit of received wisdom, care to back it up with some facts?

      Mining is a real burden to communities, all those jobs, all that money flowing into small businesses, all those extra ratepayers, population to justify decent schools and medical facilities, it’s a real bitch.

    • simon says:

      09:24am | 27/08/10

      Your comment that the mining tax should go through is utter rubbish. We are a democracy not a communist country. I used to like your articles, but comments like that just makes me think you are completely in bed with the Labor party. This tax should be thrown in the bin where it belongs!!!!

    • Reg says:

      10:13am | 27/08/10

      If we were a (Chinese) type communist country Simon, all the CEO’s of the mining companies would be appointed by the government and we would know the real situation.

      As it stands we are manipulated by the companies to their benefit and since it is a case of bullshit beats brains, we, as a democratic country, are entitled to tax the organisations based on what is known of their activities. As they are not likely to be forthcoming about their real situation, our politicians, as good servants of the people, are forced to come to their own conclusions based on their observations and the details as presented by the companies. 

      This is perfectly in line with the Machiavellian and Liberal principle of manipulation of government and the market.  I say, tax ‘em.

    • James Arvanitakis says:

      03:48pm | 28/08/10

      Hey Simon

      You can disagree with my position on the tax, call me a pinko or a communist… but please, do not accuse me of being in bed with the ALP: that vision makes my skin crawl!

      I think the idea of a sovereign fund is the way to go… I also think Rudd/Swan stuffed it big time and Gillard has done not much better.

      I hope that makes my position clear

      Cheers, j

    • Mayday says:

      09:47am | 27/08/10

      One of the main problems with the introduction of the original mining tax was the way it was implemented.
      No industry consultation as with the Petroleum Tax in which Hawke and Keating spent over twelve months nutting out the details before it was made public.
      The way the Rudd and Swan duet conducted themselves was amateur.
      They spooked the industry and shareholders, who by the way aren’t all rich, and were thrown into the deep end with little consultation. 
      They played the ‘class’ card, as usual, which maligned lots of small shareholders; trying on the old us and them routine.
      The mining industry needs to pay its fair share of tax but it should also be able to deal with a government who knows what its doing, when to keep its mouth shut and how to spend such taxes wisely.

    • fairsfair says:

      10:54am | 27/08/10

      And thus the head of the nail is hit.

      The biggest issue with the mining tax was the way that it was rolled out, explained to the people and portrayed as some robin hood system of “they rape and pillage our country we’re stupid not to sting ‘em for all that we can, while we can”. I do think that the exorbitant profits are a bit of a worry, but as they are private enterprise I never thought that this was a concern of mine. Also, those profits go back to the shareholders and are used for further exploration and expansion - continuing [what many see to be] the continued cycle. Those outside of mining communities are completely unaware of how mining companies impact the areas in which they reside. They implement infrastructure, create jobs, support local economies and contribute toward state and federal - thus saving the tax payer a packet. They also promote international investment and offer sound investment opportunity for a wide range of Australians. Though mining communities are not utopian societies and the miners themselves not saints - the actual mining process is not a pretty one - they are positive contributors. It was rediculous to think that they would just roll over and accept a high rate of flat tax when it was presented the way in which it was. The repercussions within the entire Australian community and perceptions of impacts were vastly underestimated by Rudd and Swanny. Misinformation was the killer.

      The Henry review suggests the profits based tax over the royalties system that is based on production. Most information I have read states that this idea has merit (even the miners). I can almost see the dollar signs kaching up in Rudd’s eyes when he read that gem.

      I have mining tax fatigue. I don’t have the desire to even understand the watered down version implemented by Gillard because it seemed like a rushed bandaid that was applied in order to save face with the public and pacify the miners. It needs further attention and I do hope that someone gives it the attention that it requires in future.

    • MS says:

      11:43am | 27/08/10

      Completely agree Mayday, Rudd’s approach to the Henry Tax Review (keeping it in the closet for nearly a year) was diabolical, and in the rushed introduction of the mining tax left him completely exposed. The entire impetus for tax reform is now gone thanks to this…. anyone else thinking of moving to NZ? Keys at least knows when to keep his mouth shut and implement slow and steady economic reforms.

    • Bald Eagle says:

      12:36pm | 27/08/10

      @fairsfair

      you hit your finger, not the nail.

      They implement infrastructure - No they don’t, they fly in, fly out and when the minerals are gone, they leave a big hole in the ground and little else.

      This is much ado about nothing. just billionaires like Twiggy and Palmer burning some dollars supporting the conservatives, money that they will get back tenfold when their conservative cronies get back into power.  Ordinary miners are not affected by this levy. Just super profitable ones like BHP - (doubles profit from last year). just announced - 14.4 billion dollar profit.

      I live in a mining state and I have not seen anything come out of it except higher prices and cashed up bogans.

    • Mayday says:

      03:11pm | 27/08/10

      @ Bald Eagle

      Flying in and flying out…... staying around for between seven and twenty years in order to leave that hole in the ground which is supported by a community.
      They provide jobs which bring building, roads and power to provide for the mineworkers and their families. 
      Small business in the community and indigenous Australians also benefit from the jobs created in what was originally a dirt patch.
      Ordinary miners are affected, shareholders have lost money due to a
      lack of confidence in government policy.
      All shareholders are not rich but they are trying to make a buck, risking
      their own money in the process.

    • watchingwithinterest says:

      03:38pm | 27/08/10

      This sums up the situation perfectly.  It was a grab for cash and nothing else.
      I don’t trust the labor party to place money in the future fund because all they have done since they came to office is raid the ones set up by the previous government.

      I do agree that we need to invest in infrastructure and that the nation needs tax reform.  But lets wipe the slate clean and start again by releasing the henry tax review and the modelling on which it is based and have our politicians engage the community to plan a path forward

    • The Badger says:

      04:01pm | 27/08/10

      @mayday

      you obviously don’t know what fly in fly out means. There are no families, nor communities.

      There is a hole in the ground and there is a camp. There is also a road or train line to the nearest port. You should really read up a bit on mining and get real.

      Mining companies will still make a substantial profit.

      BHP - (doubles profit from last year) 14.4 billion dollar profit.
      At BHP’s full-year results yesterday, chief executive Marius Kloppers said he would continue to support the tax if Julia Gillard was able to form government.

      The amount that this tax would take away from BHP profit is negligible.

    • Z says:

      12:47am | 28/08/10

      @The Badger,
      could you please remined me who allowed FIFO.
      was it lib or lab?

    • Gregg says:

      10:18am | 28/08/10

      Well Badger,
      Mayfair may not have been specific enough for you but not all mines will be fly in/fly out and even with the ones that are, there will be plenty of people employed in running the camps, a few of the latest ones a bit more like holiday resorts employing a hundred or so people as those miners like their comforts.

      But the largest issue by far is missed in whether the tax should be applied and at what level and that’s not even the fact that Gillard’s team of Swann and Ferguson [ and hey Wow! eh ] engaged with three big companies and left about 3000 and their peak bodies out in the cold.

      No, it is how do the taxes stack up here as against what mining companies pay abroad and what will the extra tax do to not only the bottom line profitability but consequently the ability of the many smaller companies to raise exploration and development investment dollars.
      That is what the smaller companies have been banging on about.

      Just like all businesses, the business of mining has to be internationally competitive and the billionaire boys are not making billions because of the super profitability of mines but usually because they have been able to rake together financial backing to develop a mine which may have a value because of long term production and projected revenue and your Twiggies & Co can then sell their shares and strat looking at the next project.
      The revenue that flows from the mineral production will flow to many banks, international finance houses and superannuation funds who will not only provide something for shareholders and members but also maintain cash reserves for more such investments.

      If taxing of the industry here exceeds what maintains its competitiveness with overseas ventures it is a simple enough cash flow prediction and summation of consequences ain’t it.

      The resources in the ground will produce nothing, no fly in/fly out, no local employment, less local wealth for Australians’superannuation funds and less employment so that 12% super does not even eventuate for them.

    • Kayte says:

      09:47am | 27/08/10

      Are the pollies underestimating the motivations of Australian business to engage in aggressive tax planning?  How will the “point of taxation” be held firm- dividing mining profits from non mining profits?  If implemented the tax will not reap the rewards that it is being advertised by the goverments.  In the Australian Constitution (which is only a short document) , the property of the states is protected from the Federation, which I suspect is why a profits tax is being proposed rather than a resource rent.  If the people really want a “fair share” for all Australians, do what a simple perusal of Economics 101 suggests.  Migrate to North West Australia, build houses and schools and fill the long held employment vacancies that exist there.  This is the natural human response to economic allocation of scarce resources.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:47am | 27/08/10

      I got my super statement not long ago and I am wondering where my cut of all these ‘Super Profits’ are?? Apparently ‘we’ all benefit from Super Profits in Mining, the Banks etc I see one bank making several billion in profit, another with a few billion more, mining companies with obscene billions in profits…...yet my super doesn’t seem to reflect this…...despite the propaganda line from the banks and mining companies that their super profits benefit us all…..I think we need to get a better definition of ‘us’......

    • Mayday says:

      10:24am | 27/08/10

      Wanted to bring to attention an article in this mornings Australian newspaper which touches on the Mining Tax, our Treasury and Mr. Henry.

      The paragraph below is a small extract which makes cringeworthy reading
      in relation to the operations of the Labor Government and Treasury….....
      “ill-fated proposal was dreamed up in Treasury and foisted on an unsuspecting public. To make matters worse, Treasury made several factual mistakes during the process, arguing, for example, that Australian mining companies paid about 17 per cent in tax and quoting an academic US working paper to that effect when, in fact, the effective rate of tax mining companies pay when you add in all taxes and royalties is about 41 per cent.”

      I recommend everyone take time to read the full article and consider why Mr Abbott is holding onto his costings as well as wanting to dump the Mining Tax in its present form.
      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/replace-this-partisan-treasury-with-an-independent-budget-office/story-e6frgd0x-1225910613675

    • The Badger says:

      04:03pm | 27/08/10

      At BHP’s full-year results yesterday (14.4 billion dollar profit), chief executive Marius Kloppers said he would continue to support the tax if Julia Gillard was able to form government.

      I urge you to take the time and get a balanced view of what is going on. How bad can it be if BHP wants it to happen?

    • MH says:

      04:33pm | 27/08/10

      Badger, BHP is prepared to wear the MRRT in the form negotiated as the lesser of two evils; it does not ‘want’ it.  What BHP wants is an Abbott government and no MRRT.  Sensibly, Kloppers is covering bases in the event Gillard retains government and sending a message to Gillard that BHP will stick by the MRRT bargain as negotiated only - i.e. not with any further re-think of the sort Bob Brown and Adam Bandt have suggested they will seek with their temporarily newfound power. 

      I urge you to take the time to think a little deeper than the superficial.

    • MH says:

      02:59pm | 27/08/10

      There are so many things wrong with this article it is hard to know where to start.  Various sensible posters here have pointed out many flaws. I would add a few more at the most basic level:

      1.  Tax ‘reform’:  Isolating a single industry and lumping it with an arbitrarily determined additional tax is not reform, it is a money grab to plug a hole in a budget.  Let’s talk about reform when more than 3 of 138 recommendations get a look in.  And when the state-based royalty regime the RSPT / MRRT was supposed to fix is actually simultaneously abolished.

      2.  ‘Super’ profits: Until 2 May this year no one outside of certain Marxian philosophy groups was aware of this wonderful concept of ‘super’ profits.  There was profit and there was loss.  Somewhere between then and now Henry, Rudd, Swan and the ALP campaign machine managed to convince enough of the credulous people that yes, there is in fact an identifiable level of profit which is normal and fair but above that the profit is ‘super’ and excessive and the greedy people in the relevant greedy industry should pay vastly more tax on it.  Except that this should only apply to the mining industry; super profits don’t exist in any other industry.  Just ask all those struggling bankers and penniless media tycoons.

      3.  ‘Our’ resources:  Again, until 2 May this year the resources in the ground were in fact the property of those who had spent the time, money and effort to find and develop them and duly paid their state royalties to earn the right to do so. But with a magical wave of the Henry/Rudd/Swan wand, on 3 May they became ‘our’ resources and we were entitled to 40%.  And again enough of the credulous people bought this. It’s nice to be told the reason some people are doing better than you is not that they are smarter, have worked harder and risked large amounts of capital over many years of losses to reap the rewards they are now enjoying but rather because they’ve been stealing what was rightfully yours. 

      So let’s just call a spade a spade. The RSPT and its illegitimate little sibling the MRRT were never about genuine tax reform or even particular fiscal need, they were all about lining up an easy target for a naked cash grab under the warm, all-embracing cloak of fairness that Kev and Wayne thought they could sell to a gullible electorate.  It seems to have worked on you James but fortunately enough people out there don’t quite buy it.  Hence the MRRT will either be eliminated immediately under an Abbott government or allowed to slowly wither and die under a weak Gillard coalition.

      A final footnote.  Lots of countries have tried windfall profits taxes at different times.  Most of these have been unstable third world banana republics but in each case the same thing happens.  The tax comes in, the investment capital leaves, the government sees sense and rescinds the tax, the capital comes back.  If they can work it out in the Great Yurt in Ulanbataar, surely they can do it in Canberra.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:19pm | 27/08/10

      The only thing wrong with the mining tax was that it was implemented in an election year. If it was implemented in year one of a government term it would have not been an issue. But yes, the Labor Party stuffed up tax reform in general. I still believe a financial debits tax on bank withdrawals is the way to go.

    • Boutso says:

      11:24pm | 29/08/10

      You didnt have the foresight to predict what would happen in the current location yet here you are making predictions about what will happen at the forthcoming election in 3 years time. Your a typical clueless telegraph poor excuse for a journalist. Pity your tenure as editor didnt last very long you inbred monobrow turd. All you halfwits at the tele are mentally unstable, one minute your prasing someone the next your looking for opportunities to be critical. One thing all you downys have in common though is the fact you all have zero credibility, particularly on political matters. Morons

    • luke Whitington says:

      11:45am | 07/09/10

      labor ignored the banks massive profits and attacked our major export earner.
      aside from the curious logic here, the attacked mining because they thought we didn’t like miners.
      now we have learnt that people admire people who go into wild or rough conditions to take a risk on getting rich.

      the truth is only a few get rich, but a lot of people get paid and a lot of infrastructure gets built including rail and road.

      in the labor view of things every time their wallet flies out the window they look for the one everyone dislikes, to slug for the waste they love.

      watch out construction, already under the burden of so many hidden and unhidden taxes.
      watch out gst perhaps a hike is not far out of sight?
      watch out private corporate sector we may lower one rate but get you by another.
      don’t watch out banks, you have nothing to fear. labor will never take you on.

      conclusion; sell your mining shares and buy banks franked dividends.
      who cares if we eventually start to make nothing.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter