@Shadow Minister
"The comment on oil and gas was from an radio interview on the ABC with an industry analyst I have read similar comments elsewhere. You are free to investigate and contradict me if you can."

The onus of proof is on you, but fine, I have. As you can see from the ABS link I posted previously offshore mining exploration has boomed in Australia. As far as I'm aware all offshore mining falls under the tax.

'Australia's biggest ever resource enterprise, the Gorgon gas project, has officially just begun.'
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2685600.htm

Here's one example. And this project is most certainly subject to the tax. As was the $12 billion Pluto Woodside investment. I've provided evidence that contradicts your claim. It's now up to you to rebut it.

"As for the superannuation, mining shares fell roughly 7% on the announcement of the tax, and based on super fund portfolios..."

Of course they did. Markets operate practically entirely on sentiment. But this is not necessarily an accurate portrayal of a company's bottom line, and I think you know that. The real test will be over the long term, not in the immediate wake of a scare campaign from the miners themselves. If you cared to look you would have seen that the mining shares have been rising since.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the reason for the share drop is largely the fault of the mining industry itself, due mostly to its scare campaign.

Grayzie,

With the new projects, the owners negotiate with the government the tax regime to be applied. The Gorgon project will eventually pay 40% on super profits. However, there significant differences:

- The depreciation allowances allow them to write off the entire capital expenditure before paying this tax, which gets rid of most of the risk.
- The tax only kicks in at the bond rate + 5% (about 11% today) as opposed to the bond rate. (a huge difference)
- The provisions for valuation of assets against which the 11% return on capital is calculated is far more favorable.

If all these provisions were applied to the mining sector, the tax return would drop from about $9bn p.a. to about $2bn.

This is roughly what the mining sector is negotiating to get, but this would leave a huge hole in labor's tax forecast.

The other off shore projects have got similar special terms or as PNG the super tax is not applied.

As I have said in previous threads, I am not opposed to a RSPT in principle, but if it is badly applied, it is simply a tax grab and disincentive.

It would appear to be a moot point, as the new PM appears to have dumped the RSPT in its present form anyway.

Another analysis that is worth looking at is to establish just what percentage of total annual revenues of mining companies end up in the hands of federal, state and local governments.

You realise, don't you, that iron ore companies in WA pay 7.5% of their revenues as "economic rent". They also pay payroll tax, corporate income tax. Their employees pay income tax and GST on purchases. Their suppliers pay GST, payroll tax and corporate tax (if incorporated). Their employees pay income tax, and GST on their purchases. It is clear that a very substantial portion of their total revenues end up in the hands of government.

Do we need tax reform? Maybe. But lets do it on a well considered, fair basis

And if we are going to single out industries that are 'exploiting' a public asset, lets do it properly. There are many industries/companies that exploit public assets. Forestry, fisheries, broadband spectrum, TV licences, toll road corridors, air traffic corridors, and government guarantees advanced to monopsonistic banks. (many others as well).

And land is the ultimate public asset. Why don't we look at imposing a properly calculated economic rent on all these assets? Why just pick on the mining industry, which, compared with the examples given above, are already paying top weight. You don't agree? What about 7.5% of annual revenues for WA iron ore producers. Which other exploiter of public assets pays anything like that?

Get real Tristan.

“Norway's mining income is overwhelmingly dominated by oil,” as Shadowminister correctly says; but the rest of his statement “and for a tiny country is a feeble comparison” could do with a bit of un-feebling:
Norway’s StatOil has about three-quarters Norwegian ownership, two thirds of which is by the Norwegian Government.
The Norwegians seem to be doing far better under this system than Australia is under its own administrative arrangements of its mining sector

"As I have said in previous threads, I am not opposed to a RSPT in principle, but if it is badly applied, it is simply a tax grab and disincentive."

Look I don't disagree with that. It's quite clear that the Rudd Government messed this up in a bid to prop up the budget. But these are details that will be fleshed out in negotiations and over time. The tax will most certainly not be implemented in its proposed form - and it wouldn't have been even if Gillard hadn't taken over. It's reasonable to suggest that changes need to be made.

But most opposition to it is clearly exaggerated. To suggest that as the owner of the minerals Governments of the world are at the behest of multinational mining companies is placing ultimate power in hands where it does not exist.