# MRRT negotiations hit a snag



## drsmith (20 October 2010)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/20/3043016.htm

To perserve it's expected revenue stream, the Federal Government could try stopping state governments increasing royalty rates as an alternative.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## joea (21 December 2010)

The report out today on the revised mining tax  gives a thumbs up to integrity of the miners and government offical who have supported the original wording on the agreement.
There is a way to go but things are looking better for the nation.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2010)

drsmith said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/20/3043016.htm
> 
> To perserve it's expected revenue stream, the Federal Government could try stopping state governments increasing royalty rates as an alternative.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how this plays out.



Indeed it will.  Looks as though the government has decided the support of the miners is more important than that of State governments.



joea said:


> The report out today on the revised mining tax  gives a thumbs up to integrity of the miners and government offical who have supported the original wording on the agreement.
> There is a way to go but things are looking better for the nation.



 I doubt the State Premiers would agree on this, given they are apparently now going to be restricted in increasing royalties, if I'm understanding correctly what is being proposed.


----------



## drsmith (26 October 2011)

Having botched it on the state government royalties side, more chickens might be about to come home to roost on the hastily arranged MRRT.



> Under the current plan, iron ore and coal miners who passed the $50 million MRRT threshold would be hit with the tax.
> 
> The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, which represents small and mid-tier miners, would like to see that threshold increased to $500 million. Wilkie has not yet specified a figure.






> In the eyes of many tax accountants it is near impossible to get a read on how much the likes of BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata will pay in MRRT over the next 10 years.
> 
> Meanwhile there are suggestions that Swan gave Treasury a task to fix the problem this week but it is hard to see how any serious tinkering with the legislation will meet with the approval of the large mining companies.




http://www.smh.com.au/business/gillard-stuck-on-flawed-mining-deal-20111025-1mhzd.html


----------



## drsmith (11 February 2013)

Labor really should be reduced to 10 years of hard chook raffles.



> The coal and iron ore price falls last August and September were largely taken into account when Treasury reviewed the budget outlook in October last year, but revenue has been reduced to almost nothing by much larger than expected mining tax deductions.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ates-write-downs/story-fn59nsif-1226574976212


----------



## banco (11 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> Labor really should be reduced to 10 years of hard chook raffles.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ates-write-downs/story-fn59nsif-1226574976212




I think the question is whether Gillard etc. knew that the miners were screwing them when they renegotiated the tax or whether they just got outplayed.  Treasury was apparently largely excluded from the negotiations.


----------



## drsmith (11 February 2013)

I suspect they they got outplayed, but largely didn't care either way. That wasn't an essential part of their immediate political objectives at that time.


----------



## drsmith (2 September 2014)

The MRRT is no more.

The senate has passed its repeal.


----------



## burglar (2 September 2014)

drsmith said:


> The MRRT is no more.
> 
> The senate has passed its repeal.




Does that mean I'll get back my lost seed capital?


----------

