Minerals Resource Rent Tax misunderstanding?

• 

  [Deactivated] on 09/08/2013 - 23:42

  +1

  There was always going to be some give and take involved as the legislation was bedded down but in a nutshell the answer is yes the original plan was watered down as a direct result of (a) Abbott's refusal to support it (no amount of big mining money would have made one iota of difference in that case) and (b) big mining's campaign against the legislation with an election imminent. The same political mob also opposed the PRRT when Labor introduced it (in the 80s from memory) and history shows that has been great policy for both the industry and the nation. David Buckingham, former head of the Minerals Council (and ED of the Business Council of Australia), said this in regards to the original resource super profit tax: "given these profits are made principally from the exclusive right to exploit a non-renewable resource owned by the Australian people, such tax rates are far from unreasonable". A few decades back oppositions would have sought amendments but passed such legislation because it was for the good of the nation. They let governments govern, although not without pressure. In his rush for power Abbott put his own and his party's interests before the people of this country and that will stain his career forever more in my opinion. His intransigence has already cost us ~$2B. Some policies must be supported irrespective of your politics. This is one such case and a pox on those who have seen to its diminution and an even bigger pox on those who may bring about its demise.

• 

  kiitos on 10/08/2013 - 08:06

  Thanks for the great explanation, Possumbly!

  Stupid question from me, betraying my appalling knowledge of politics - were the Liberals able to influence/water down the plan because Labor and Liberal were so close in numbers of representatives in parliament? If so, wouldn't it have been the responsibility of the three Indpendents, who seemed to have all the power to decide, for any watering down that occurred?

  By way of contrast, at the momemt Labor is warning of Liberals upping the GST if they get into power - wouldn't Labor therefore be able to oppose this? Or, again, would that only be if Labor + any Independents had the numbers?

  Do all such decisions need a vote across all of pariliament? Eg, the Education Revolution, Insulation Scheme, etc?

• 

  [Deactivated] on 10/08/2013 - 23:12

  +1

  It's complex but I'll try to simplify. The problem was that the big miners were spending millions on an ad campaign trying to convince Australians that the MRRT was a bad thing, and they were winning the battle of the minds. The govt's counter selling of the MRRT was pathetically weak, and in the end they decided to negotiate with the mining companies and in return the big miners dropped their advertising campaign. If Abbott had supported the legislation, even with amendments, the miners' campaign would have been toothless. Yes, Labor could have run the original legislation through the House and the Senate, and it may have passed but then big mining would have campaigned against them during the last election - and we know how close that was. Abbott had "promised" to dump the MRRT so he would have been the beneficiary of the miners' campaign. That's still the Coalition's position.

  Yes, legislation must be passed by a majority in the House of Reps and also later by the Senate. No probs if you have the numbers in both houses but often that isn't the case. Generally speaking the Senate will not be obstructionist (given that the govt has been elected and has a mandate to introduce their policies) but the last and current parliaments have seen changes to that convention. Hence when Rudd's CPRS was knocked back by the Greens and Coalition it was ditched.

  When govt legislation is rejected twice by an obstructionist Senate the PM can call a "double dissolution" which vacates every seat in both the House and the Senate. Elections for all 150 HoReps and 76 Senate seats are held and the new govt can pass legislation via a majority votes of the whole 226 reps. A government would have to be extremely confident to go down that route.

  Not all actions or expenditures of a government are voted on. Only things which a government wants to pass into law are subject to a vote, and in most cases agreement, with amendment, is reached. It's a recent phenomenon where parliaments have been obstructionist to the point of sacrificing the national interest for their own lust for power. The MRRT, Carbon Tax, NDIS, NBN, Gonski education funding arrangements are all good policy for the country and should be supported by both major parties. Unfortunately with Abbott at the helm good policy is currently a secondary consideration for the conservative side of politics. My opinion of course.

  • 

    PresidentClinton on 13/08/2013 - 01:42

    Just to play devil's advocate, a hung parliament is a very unique situation for parliaments such as ours, and for someone to hold the opposition leadership for so long deserves a bit of credit. Having a far left balance of power in the senate (Greens) is also fairly unique, and their style of politics is very different from the centrist parties.

    I think as an opposition leader with actual power to influence bills and their passage (via the independents), Abbott has chosen a very preemptive style of attacking the government. He placed the Coalition's policy around surplus economics and therefore, needed to attack any hit to the budget bottom line. The NDIS was supported by the Coalition as well as a rehashed NBN.

    However it is pretty sad to see politics degraded to using what I call Boganomics. Simplistic slogans ("We need a strong economy", "Stop the boats", "We have a triple A credit rating"), mud slinging (Peter Slipper, Craig Thomson), and generally annoying behaviour (Chris Pyne, Kevin Rudd's Hand Movements, Abbott's Old boys club mannerisms).

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 13/08/2013 - 11:06

      The Coalition voted against the NBN and are now proposing to build a ridiculously expensive dogs breakfast, but you couldn't be more correct in regard to boganomics. The proportion of people who regurgitate the surplus good deficit bad mantra is astounding. National economic management is very different from houshold budgeting but it has one obvious thing in common. Many householders - the majority who can actually afford it - are in significant debt to their bank because they understand that borrowing for the future is, usually, a sound economic strategy. Most borrow for housing as we know, others borrow to purchase shares or establish businesses. The idea that a government which has far wider ranging responsibilities, including stimulation of the economy where required, shouldn't be in debt is puerile nonsense. Australian governments have run deficits for nigh on 90% of all parliaments since Federation and this government doesn't have a AAA credit rating because its debt is out of control as some would have us believe.