The mining tax was a dumb idea – it always was. It was predicated on at least two heroic assumptions – that rent exists and that rent could be sufficiently well defined to form a tax base. To deliver the promised benefits both assumptions had to be true, yet neither stand up to scrutiny. Rent, at best, is a short run phenomenon.
This morning Ross Gittins is out and about maintaining the faith:
The case for requiring the miners to pay a higher price for their use of the public’s mineral reserves at a time of exceptionally high world prices (even now) is strong.
Remembering the miners are largely foreign-owned, a well-designed tax on above-normal profits is a good way to ensure Australians are left with something to show for all the holes in the ground.
Similarly, the argument that a tax on ”economic rent” (above-normal profit) is more efficient than royalty payments based on volume or price is strong, as is the argument that taxing economic rent should have no adverse effect on the level of mining activity. Relative to royalties, quite the reverse.
But Abbott cared about none of that. His response was utterly opportunistic. He would have opposed the tax whether it was good, bad or indifferent.
We can never know if Tony Abbott would have opposed a good tax – I haven’t seen it happen, but he has opposed a whole bunch of bad taxes.
If you want the antidote to Gittins’ piece read Henry Ergas in the Australian.
Rather, the real problem is the premise on which the MRRT and the RSPT were based: that there are vast mineral rents waiting to be taxed. Belief in that el dorado was central to the Henry report. But it never examined mining’s long-run profitability. Instead, it relied on questionable modelling to claim the resource states were leaving a fortune on the table.
Yet the government’s own data tells a different story. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, a dollar invested in manufacturing in 1985 would have been worth $10.70 in mid-2010 (the latest date available); invested in mining, it would only have been worth 35c more. And that reflects six recent years of unsustainably high mineral prices: for most of the period, manufacturing’s return was comfortably above that in mining.
Moreover, returns in mining, while barely higher than those in manufacturing, have been nearly three times more variable. That is unsurprising. Australian mining is immensely capital intensive, using $4 of capital for each $1 of labour. Yet it faces large and historically rising swings in world prices. True, there are periods of plenty; but there are lengthy lean spells too, when returns fall far below the level investors require to finance mining in the long run.
The mining tax – like the carbon tax – is bad policy. It violates one of Adam Smith’s principles of taxation – to take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the treasury.
Henry Ergas explains how the mining tax scores on that front:
The MRRT was to yield $3.7 billion in 2012-13; instead, it has raised $126 million, with only one more payment due this fiscal year. And even that is an overestimate, as 30 per cent of the MRRT’s revenues are forgone company tax payments. So it has yielded a paltry $95m. But it costs $50m to administer, while the mining industry spends $20m on compliance. It therefore consumes 75c of resources for each $1 of revenue. And as Jonathan Pincus, Mark Harrison and I showed immediately after it was announced, those revenues are so volatile that each $1 may only be worth 60c or less as a “sure bet”. The tax’s direct costs alone consequently exceed its value to taxpayers.
As it turns out the greatest contribution this tax will make to national prosperity is its abolition.
What is an “above-normal profit”, you git? Here’s a hint – don’t ask kevni.
Ah yes, the Abbott monster, heroically opposing taxes, be they good bad or indifferent.
Fauxfacts’ implosion is long overdue. When’s that paywall going up, geniuses?
Rabz
18 Feb 13 at 9:56 am
I don’t know when the Paywall goes up Rabz, but you have to admire their courage.
(Winston is channelling Sir Humphrey.)
Winston SMITH
18 Feb 13 at 10:06 am
Sinclair,
We really do need a numbers based table showing who pays tax in this country, and a concerted effort by the economically literate to refocus attention on profits as defined by the dividend rate, rather than the accounting profit for the corporate entity.
This is basically war and we need the ordnance.
Louis Hissink
18 Feb 13 at 10:10 am
I think the primary problem with the minerals rents tax is that it infringes on State rights.
The mantra that somehow the tax would deliver the benefits of the mining boom to all Australians ignores the reality that under our present Constitution, the Federal Government does not have the legal right to tax State resources, thereby effectively appropriating them from the States.
Gillard & Co made no effort to address the issue which is probably their wisest move in this whole dumb fiasco since it’s a sure bet that WA and Qld would refuse to cede their rights without massive compensation.
If the Feds really want this sort of tax, sort out the constitutional issues first.
Lloyd
18 Feb 13 at 10:29 am
Hmmm
What about Rudd, Swan, Gillard Wong, Shorten and Bradbury, all of them, taking only four out of 128 recommendations for tax reform, and stuffing all of them up?
.
18 Feb 13 at 10:31 am
Part of the issue is trying to tax both rent and profit. Doing both inherently increases the seasonality of rent.
The only reason it is difficult to see that rent exists is that we have a overriding tendency to capture it as a capital purchase rather than a ongoing cost.
DriftForge
18 Feb 13 at 10:32 am
The mining boom gives everyone more purchasing power. The mining indusrty has the second highest inter industry multiplier in the economy. The mining industry pays is pulling their own weight and a heap of other industries when it comes to paying taxes…etc.
Manufacturing is buggered because of on costs, labour market laws and decades of encouraging unviable businesses to operate.
.
18 Feb 13 at 10:35 am
This is the first reason – the second is that it’s imposition involves the effective theft of something that is treated as an asset.
If the tax had been imposed at a state level, and only on new projects (or at the option of minimg companies on existing ones) then there wouldn’t have been a leg to stand on for the mining companies.
DriftForge
18 Feb 13 at 10:35 am
“rent” – above normal profit, and profit is?
Should it not be the final disbursement to the share-holders, the ultimate owners of the mining company?
Therefore since when was 3% profit above normal?
Louis Hissink
18 Feb 13 at 10:36 am
You know, I’m starting to go along with that firm, resilient, strong-minded 30% or so of voters who will vote for the Labor mob (no matter how incompetently it governs and how corrupt the
PM might be) because, if Tony Abbott can establish such bad taxes, and make such a mess of the economy, whilst he’s Opposition Leader, just how badly can he damage the country as PM?
The mind boggles.
Deadman
18 Feb 13 at 10:42 am
It follows logically that WorkChoices was Wayne Swan’s fault.
C.L.
18 Feb 13 at 10:50 am
Fairfax directors should see this – Gittins talks one-eyed politics rather than economics, and the circulation continues to drop.
MACK1
18 Feb 13 at 10:50 am
I can only see this working if the company is run as a trust in which no profit is retained, and all new investment is at the choice of the shareholders.
DriftForge
18 Feb 13 at 10:52 am
So let me see if I get the argument from the Gallery and our betters from places like The Insiders and Ross Gittens columns.
Labor and designed a tax that doesn’t work. We were made to do it though because of negotiation skills inherent in our female PM. Did I mention she was PM and female? And could negotiate? So it can’t be that. Labor was only made to do stupid things becasue of Abbott.
But at least it took in $126 million and I forget how much it costs to run.
But it could have been worse.
But Abbott.
But miners. Rich ones.
But billionaires.
But foreigners – investors not illegal asylum seekers – are bad.
But shut up.
Mark
18 Feb 13 at 10:52 am
It is also why the PRRT comparison was faulty. PRRT was for oil and gas exploited in Commonwealth waters and there were no state royalties.
Judith Sloan
18 Feb 13 at 11:14 am
These people would sooner saw their Mother’s left tit off than admit the obvious. This morning an ALP apologist had the drop in labor’s popularity due to: “bad timing, lack of discipline and poor communication”. Really? And I suppose the reason no one buys anthrax-laced dogshit sandwiches is because the sales pitch lacks alluring top notes?
Labor policies are society wrecking idiocy produced by economically illiterate fantasists.
And when is someone going to point out (if they haven’t already and I missed it) that Australia previously had a big stoush over miners fed up with government impost. I seem to recall our Labor mates were on a different side in those days…
Ooh Honey Honey
18 Feb 13 at 11:21 am
Can someone please correct me…I understood Rudd was knived because of his abandonment of the “Greatest moral challenge of our time?” The MRRT was simply the last straw.
Either way, Gillard has now shown she will do anything to hold onto power:
-Long knives;
-Slippery Pete;
-Crazy Craig;
-Hatches Harry;
-’AWU Bill’;
-Green ‘friends’;
-Independent ‘friends’;
-Colourful ‘friends’;
Howard once referred to this group as a “Cosmopolitan coalition” – I think he was being generous.
Lysander Spooner
18 Feb 13 at 11:43 am
What is this twaddle. The MRRT was a spectacular success that exceeded its revenue forecasts. Are you guys smoking crack or something?
Grey
18 Feb 13 at 11:43 am
Hahahahahahahaha
John Mc
18 Feb 13 at 11:44 am
Grey. We is not smoking da crack as we is out on the football field warming up for the big season
Lysander Spooner
18 Feb 13 at 11:46 am
Piggy Howes was on the radio this morning doubling down on the dumb.
Mining barons=bad
Mining workers= salt of the earth.
The fact that without the first there are bugger all of the second seems to have eluded him.
The Paul “underpants gnome” Howes theory of mining.
Minerals
?
Profit.
thefrollickingmole
18 Feb 13 at 11:46 am
The cost of the MRRT is ‘way worse than even Henry Ergas’s calcs.
I do service work for the mining industry. I remember the day well when the original RSPT was announced. Two days later no ALP pollie was courageous enough to attend the opening of the 3rd coal loader here in Newcastle in May 2010, and for me the phone stopped ringing for 6 months.
I suspect a lot of people could report that same experience. The foregone revenue just in income tax not paid, due to less work done, would be large.
Bruce
18 Feb 13 at 11:54 am
The AWU or any other cash ridden union (for that matter the Commonwealth too) could invest in a startup mining company if they think it leads to such an avalanche of riches.
Wazsah
18 Feb 13 at 11:56 am
This is insane. The MRRT is raising stacks of revenue through the increased royalties the states have levied across the board on all miners, not just the big three.
On top of that Wayne Swan and the ALP have painted the miners as cheaters and tax avoiders in the public mind, softening the public mood up to take another bite in the near future.
Wayne Swan has run rings around the miners. Lots more money for government already and the ground prepared to takes lots more.
Grey
18 Feb 13 at 12:00 pm
A case of a comedian becoming a joke?
Ross Gittin’s punchline (Abbott partly to blame for tax debacle, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 Feb) was that economic reform is not possible unless the supporters of a party in opposition urge bi-partisanship (used in the sense of capitulation) on their own side, and thereby ensure reciprocity when in government.
Leo G
18 Feb 13 at 12:06 pm
LOL Grey. I love your work.
If you going to FAIL, make sure you go big and fail on a grand scale.
Yesterday it was boasting of the strong performance of Plibersek, now you are applauding Goose’s ability to create lose money for the Commonwealth.
Token
18 Feb 13 at 12:10 pm
…ability to create trouble and lose money for the Commonwealth
Token
18 Feb 13 at 12:14 pm
On top of that Wayne Swan and the ALP have painted the miners as cheaters and tax avoiders in the public mind, softening the public mood up to take another bite in the near future.
Furthermore, that’s not really the behaviour I expect of my government.
John Mc
18 Feb 13 at 12:16 pm
lied and distorted what the mining industry pays. More than 40% in taxes, it’s the highest taxed industry in Austraya. Note also that royalties paid to state governments also go into the GST pool which is distributed around to all other states, even the mendicant state of Tasmania, thereby ensuring all Austrayans benefit from mining.
Gab
18 Feb 13 at 12:20 pm
W T F?
$126M is $0.126 billion. It is nowhere near the $10bn forecast by Treasury. At this rate it will take the Federal Government 40 years to collect $10bn from this tax.
As for the increase in State royalties, the States can increase or decrease their royalties without the MRRT.
Lloyd
18 Feb 13 at 12:25 pm
Lloyd at 10.29,
I have this question, and am aware I am wading into unchartered waters as a non-economist.
Buchanan discusses Subprograms and Rent Seeking p6 before going onto Constitutional Political Economy p7 in the development of his version of Public Choice theory. I understand that Buchanan, realising a gap (majority cycle cf Wicksell 1896 p3) based a research program on this gap titled non-market decision making/public choice.
Has Buchanan’s theory influenced the discussion by economists/politicians in any way? aka MRRT and Carbon Tax or Trading Xchanges, as discussed in the above?
The question may not be correctly formulated, or even totally irrelevant, however I would appreciate a reply if possible from learned bloggers. Any rock throwing will be dodged by this student. Thank you.
Jessie
18 Feb 13 at 12:50 pm
I thought the large miners were paying about 45% tax overall. The shareholders bear the brunt of this, don’t they? I don’t care where the shareholders reside; it is upon their money that all tax paying companies receive their support.
Also, could Grey be that numbers bloke in drag?
Hubert East
18 Feb 13 at 12:54 pm
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but when you are dealing with a foe as wily and as unscrupulous as the mining interest then you need to respond in kind.
The mistake the miners made was thinking this was a one round bout, it was Wayne Swan who had the foresight, no the vision, to see beyond the inevitable partial defeat (although don’t forget all that extra hospital equipment the States can now purchase with their increased revenue) to the path to ultimate victory. In the same way the crucified Jesus triumphed over his adversaries so will Wayne Swan’s Golgotha turn to ultimate triumph.
Or as St Paul put it: “when I am weak, then I am strong.”
If Joe Hockey were to look a little less to Milton Friedman and read Corinthians with greater attention he might turn out to be a half decent treasurer – in 2016
Grey
18 Feb 13 at 12:57 pm
No – grey has a sense of humour, for starters.
Rabz
18 Feb 13 at 12:57 pm
I nominate “Crazy Theory meets The Wind Shield of Reality” as one of the all time greatest thread headers on a blog anywhere in the known internet world!
Well done Mr Davidson.
It would make a great Blog site name…. best you copy right the saying….
And there is a huge gulf between Ergas and Gittins.
One you appreciate the logic and detail of his argument and are appreciative to be privy to his thoughts… thank you Sir H, I very much appreciate when you share your thoughts.
The other you look at what he is quoted to have said and based on your own prior observations you wonder where some people ‘git’ their ideas from?
NoFixedAddress
18 Feb 13 at 1:04 pm
Wayne Swan who had the foresight, no the vision, to see beyond the inevitable partial defeat (although don’t forget all that extra hospital equipment the States can now purchase with their increased revenue) to the path to ultimate victory.
That is quite funny,……..all the more funnier with Swan probably losing his seat.
John Mc
18 Feb 13 at 1:04 pm
Wayne Swan is not the messiah he’s just a very naughty boy. Although Grey may disagree. Which do you follow Grey, the sandal or the gourd?
Bruce
18 Feb 13 at 1:05 pm
I like Pynes comparison better;
“Well it is a debacle; the parliament resembles something like a Doctor Moreau’s Island.”
Splatacrobat
18 Feb 13 at 1:08 pm
[email protected]
I’m no economist either.
Nor am I a lawyer. I recall that the Constitution recognises that States control the resources which lie within their individual borders. That recognition was a requirement for Federation and has not been removed via referenda although successive Federal Governments chip away at State rights.
Under Chapter V, Section 114 the Constitution states:
States may not raise forces. Taxation of property of Commonwealth or State
A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.
which would seem to fairly cut and dried to a bumpkin like me.
Lloyd
18 Feb 13 at 1:13 pm
FFS, Grey, even Monty Python’s black knight only said his arm being cut off was “just a flesh wound”. If you’d written the script losing his limbs would have been his deliberate strategy.
Of course, you might be being ironic..
squawkbox
18 Feb 13 at 1:18 pm
Windshield is 1 word.
The LNP TV ads just write themselves.
Picture 1 – Gillard getting kisses for passing the MRRT.
Picture 2 – newspaprer headlines showing what a failure it is.
We had kevin o’lemon ads.
Time for Julia o’lemon ones as well
pete m
18 Feb 13 at 1:18 pm
I’m quite enjoying Grey’s stand-up routine on this thread. You should take it on the road, young man. There’s a huge living to be made for comedians willing to tap the lunacy of the temporary Australian revolutionary marxist government. Dave Hughes is on TV every week night but he is spewing because he has had to forgo huge slabs of material to protect his beloved kleptocracy. The left have no-one but themselves to blame for the death of Australian comedy.
Tom
18 Feb 13 at 1:20 pm
Transcript of Paul Howes’ “We Will Fight Them on the Beaches”** speech from this morning’s opening address.
PM to give address today as will most of the front bench, wherein they will pay homage to their AWU puppet masters. Talk about vested interests.
.
.
**Or as I see it, the Black Knight‘s speech.
Gab
18 Feb 13 at 1:27 pm
The next instalment will be 6 March in the High Court in Fortescue Metals Group Limited and Ors v. The Commonwealth of Australia
Justice Keane takes the Bench on 5 March, and is considered a strong States’ rights advocate.
Econocrat
18 Feb 13 at 1:30 pm
So am I, Tom, but it’s annoying not being able to guess whether Grey is being serious or not. Five years ago an article blaming a huge government policy failure on the opposition leader, and comments that say it’s really all a cunning plan, would have been obvious pisstakes, but after 5 years of GillRudd, who can tell?
squawkbox
18 Feb 13 at 1:31 pm
I think we’ve been Arlene Composta’d by Grey.
Token
18 Feb 13 at 1:34 pm
Grey does some amusing satire at times, but there lies the same undergraduate fascism we expect from lefties. It comes out from time to time.
brc
18 Feb 13 at 1:46 pm
Thank you
Lloyd at 1.13
Presumably that leaves the question of Local Govt out of the equation? Local govt is funded and marketed as an entity in many a cultural and infrastructure form (employee awards and tender functions for eg) as the true functional democracy. Albeit at level of the grass roots, and somewhat water logged or burnt in recent times.
The status of local government and its grass roots form, including inclusion is a current Constitutional question.
Jessie
18 Feb 13 at 2:02 pm
The status of local government and its grass roots form,
includingand inclusion is a current Constitutional question.Jessie
18 Feb 13 at 2:03 pm
you mean like this??
Maws
18 Feb 13 at 2:09 pm
I think Local Government is empowered by individual States enacting appropriate enabling legislation. Local governments cannot raise taxes, but they can raise rates for services such as roads, sewerage etc.
I doubt whether Constitutional issues arise re local government.
Lloyd
18 Feb 13 at 2:10 pm
Depending on which version, the terminology changes
American King James version
And he said, Go forth, and stand on the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
Jessie
18 Feb 13 at 2:19 pm
This issue is deeper than the debate over States rights. It is based on the blithering inanity of the general populace who pick out in primary colours the argument that there’s all this valuable stuff just sitting there in the ground and rich bastards get to dig it up and keep it.
People need basic reeducation. Bastards become rich because they stump up their own money and take big risks. It looks easy because you never hear about the ones that fail, remember how the victors get to write history?
It is immaterial whether it is minerals or textiles or services. You must take risks and understand that you might lose. If you want a “share” of that action, then fucking buy “shares”!
Ooh Honey Honey
18 Feb 13 at 2:23 pm
Of course they do. But bastards also become rich by persuading people to sell their property at the lowest price.
“You are asking how much? Are you trying to ruin me? What about my children – how am I going to feed them? What about my aged mother I have to support? Do you expect me to beg for bread on the streets. I am walking away, no, I am – I am just walking away. What an outrage! How much did you say you wanted again? What about my camels – do you think they just feed themselves? Don’t talk to me about the camel fodder rebate – just the freight costs themselves make it extortionate. I had to get three of them reshod just last week and you know how much the blacksmiths cost these days. How much did you say? Oh alright, but its highway robbery, I tell you, highway robbery. My children, my children, what is ever to become of you”
A little time in the bazaars of the Silk Route train you in everything you need to know about the miners bargaining tactics.
Grey
18 Feb 13 at 2:31 pm
Well, the Feds have stated that the Australian people own the mineral resources.
While you can argue whether that is true enough I think it’s more accurate to say that the people of the individual States (who just happen to be Australian) collectively own the mineral resources. By definition, the people in other States cannot possibly own those resources.
In turn the people of each State through their State Governments issue leases to mining companies to extract those resources. Those same mining companies pay again in the form of royalties to the State Government and pay yet again in the form of company tax on the profits of their exertions.
To say mining companies pay no tax is bollocks, which of course is the Government’s argument.
Lloyd
18 Feb 13 at 2:32 pm
No, they belong to the Crown. If we ask the Queen very nicely she might vest them in the people of the different states or she might decide to vest them in the Commonwealth.
Mind your p’s and q’s, curtsy and don’t forget to call her ma’am when you ask.
Grey
18 Feb 13 at 2:36 pm
The Carbin Tax is a mechanism where the Commonwealth tapped into the rates revenue of councils by listing them in the 500 greatest carbin sinners.
The rates payers in the rural/semi-rural shires that made the list have been hit with more tax and less services.
Token
18 Feb 13 at 2:42 pm
Grey, I don’t know who is the more ignorant of the mining industry practices, you or numbers.
However reading your posts here, both of you seem as delusional.
Louis Hissink
18 Feb 13 at 2:44 pm
I find Gittins a good political & economic barometer, if you find yourself agreeing with him about anything, you haven’t thought about the issue enough.
Richard D
18 Feb 13 at 2:49 pm
And the Queen is represented by the Governor-General.
So it must be the Governor-Genarel that has day to day control of those extractive industries…..
Is there an ICAC inquiry in NSW?
NoFixedAddress
18 Feb 13 at 2:54 pm
Err Grey, the Crown of the Commonwelath is different to the Crown of NSW etc, which is why in part the States had to agree to become republics before the 1999 referendum, conditional to the referendum being successfully passed.
.
18 Feb 13 at 2:57 pm
Grey. Gibberish.
The minerals may belong to this or that party. But the value added to the minerals by taking the risk of trying to dig them up and sell them belongs to whoever pays for that activity. And if people can understand that they might be ready for more challenging problems like what does 2 + 2 equal.
Ooh Honey Honey
18 Feb 13 at 2:59 pm
It’s called the clown nose on/clown nose off.
Pioneered by left-wing extremist Jon Stewart, it involves being serious, triumphalist, didactic and sanctimonious when Labor is going well and light-hearted, self-effacing, subjectivist and facetious when Labor is going badly.
C.L.
18 Feb 13 at 3:01 pm
M0nty made exactly the same blunder a while ago.
Which either shows that leftists all get their incorrect talking points from exactly the same sources (which they do) or grey is actually m0nty.
twostix
18 Feb 13 at 3:06 pm
So? That doesn’t tell who owns the minerals. For example the seabeds also belonged to States prior to Federation as part of sovereign rights yet the Queen accepted advice from the Commonwealth that they were now vested in the Federal government according to the Seas and Submerged Lands Act of 1973 and refused to hear a petition from the States.
The Commonwealth handed this property back under the act of 1980 – but that was a voluntary concession on the part of the commonwealth.
In any case, it is irrelevant to the working of a super profits tax
Grey
18 Feb 13 at 3:15 pm
Now we are cooking with gas. Indeed the minerals do belong to this or that party, ergo this or that party should try and get the best price they can.
End.
Grey
18 Feb 13 at 3:17 pm
mOnty may be the size of three normal people but he doesn’t have the wit or the energy for sockpuppets. The only sockpuppets he uses are for manual stimulation.
Infidel Tiger
18 Feb 13 at 3:18 pm
The latest poll is probably upsetting for Grey and MOnty etc, it’s understandable.
candy
18 Feb 13 at 3:19 pm
Damn it CL.
Snap!
Winston SMITH
18 Feb 13 at 3:19 pm
Just thinking aloud, but if say BHP had to fork out $1 billion in MRRT tax out of company profit (before disbursement to shareholders) what would that leave the share holders percentage wise? That is where the super profit is supposed to occur, no?
And why then would anyone buy mining company shares in order to share the risk and profits?
Or is this tax a ploy to disenfranchise the shareholders?
Or, my preferred interpretation, we are dealing with economic ignoramuses.
Louis Hissink
18 Feb 13 at 3:20 pm
Only one poll that counts – and that is poll of the shadowy forces that run this country.
And I am afraid the shadowy forces are with me – accept carbon pricing and we will let you pretend to run the country for a few terms. Otherwise enjoy your time on the opposition benches and watch the other party pretend to run the country.
Grey
18 Feb 13 at 3:22 pm
The Crown of the respective jurisdiction.
Really? Then how do they collect the PRRT?
So how many nautical miles out to sea does the Crown of each State actually own?
All of what you’ve said means the are owned in trust by each State Government until someone pays a mining licence fee and pays royalties on production/extraction, then they are legally conveyed to the miners.
Which gives the Commonwealth no right to tax mining in the States.
.
18 Feb 13 at 3:24 pm
Insane.
.
18 Feb 13 at 3:25 pm
Yeap, that is bang on. Take your time, no hurry.
[A tad naughty. Sinc]
Shadowy Forces
18 Feb 13 at 3:25 pm
No idea, but here is the legislation Coastal Waters (State Powers) 1980
http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-102.html
Grey
18 Feb 13 at 3:28 pm
The election is six months away anyway. Don’t count your chickens is my thoughts, always better to be prudent.
candy
18 Feb 13 at 3:29 pm
The I enjoyed watching Stewart fumble for the clown mask when he went full leftard defending his creepy hombre Anthony Weiner.
Token
18 Feb 13 at 3:30 pm
A lot of the shareholders will be super funds, maybe even union funds. So biting their own hand off.
Biota
18 Feb 13 at 3:42 pm
Which automatically favours the ignoramus option. This lot wouldn’t be appointed as license plate bulbs.
Louis Hissink
18 Feb 13 at 3:56 pm
Ross is a Keynes-Climate change believer. So he writes as such. Taxes to spend on government projects.
stackja
18 Feb 13 at 3:57 pm
Grey is proving to be longer-winded Hammy. Both are amusement value only, and precious little of that.
blogstrop
18 Feb 13 at 4:02 pm
“Both are amusement value only, and precious little of that.”
Don’t feel bad about not even providing amusement value, blogstrop. I’m sure you’ll say something useful eventually.
Jarrah
18 Feb 13 at 4:06 pm
Gittins is one of those crazy uncles that the left indulges – Richard Glover has him on Journos’ Forum pretty often, and he’s as mad as a cut snake most of the time. But alongside Jennifer Byrne, it’s easy for him to just fit in. Greg Sheridan is on regularly too, but most of the time sounds like he’s trying to be liked. Every now and again he goes off quite effectively and disagrees with everything Gittins says.
blogstrop
18 Feb 13 at 4:07 pm
Oh, mighty Feet of Clay man, our own Ozymandias has returned.
blogstrop
18 Feb 13 at 4:08 pm
I go back to the secretive and ideological partisan behaviour of Treasury in this whole exercise.
Without reference to their colleagues in AGSO or industry, they came up with ridiculous assumptions (my favorite was their estimate of coal and iron reserves) that were so detached from the reality of industry practice, and then deliberately tried to find a way of evading the complication of state royalties.
This was not impartial advice. It was a tacitly supported and intellectually compromised position from senior bureaucrats such as Gruen
Shame on them and those of us who spend months in remote isolated environments with bad food and rough accomodation will not forget these traitors. There needs to be blood so people understand the consequences of their actions.
First a Royal Commission into Treasury
Second a Royal Commission into CSIRO
Pete
18 Feb 13 at 9:10 pm
Grey, nobody doubts that you spend a hell of a lot of time in the bizarres. Might be time try a different medication.
Rob
18 Feb 13 at 9:33 pm
That would be Marxist economics in a nutshell, I mean ignore the specific context.
The case for states having proper ownership of their mineral wealth and thus able to put a meaningful price on royalties is strong. The mineral reserves have never belonged to “the public” they belong to each separate state.
Tel
18 Feb 13 at 11:09 pm