Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

Tony Windsor's muscle « Previous | |Next »
November 22, 2011

Now we can see one of the benefits of a minority government in the context of a capital intensive mining boom that is driving Australia's economic growth.


It was Tony Windsor, not the Greens, who used his political power with respect to the mining tax to negotiate on behalf of those farm groups and environmentalists who are worried about the potential impact of coal and coal-seam gas developments on precious but poorly understood underground water resources from the Darling Downs to the Liverpool Plains.

Windsor has said he won’t back the government’s Mineral Resources Rent Tax unless more is done to make coal seam gas mining sustainable.He also called for $200-400 million annually from the tax revenue to go toward bio-regional assessments. He also wants to see the Commonwealth have greater power over granting coal seam gas mining rights.

The Gillard Government has acted to address the concerns over:

• The competition posed to agriculture and the environment by the massive volumes of water required for mining;

• The potential damage to and contamination of underground aquifers; and

• The potential threat posed by millions of tonnes of super saline water brought to the surface with coal-seam gas.

The new Independent Expert Scientific Committee will provide scientific advice about coal-seam gas and large coalmining approvals where they have significant impacts on water. It will oversee research on the impacts on water resources from coal-seam gas and large coalmining projects. And it will commission and fund water resource assessments for priority regions.

Gillard gets what she wanted --the passage of the (much watered down) Mineral Resources Rent Tax (MRRT) in the House of Representatives---after negotiating with Andrew Wilkie to increase the $50 million profit threshhold at which the mining tax will apply to $75 million, phasing up to $125 million.

Then she can chalk up another significant piece of legislation passed. She just needs to negotiate with The Greens to find some of the revenue lost from raising the threshold.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:51 PM | | Comments (10)


At last!
Someone in parliament finally understands the role of science and puts the horse before the cart as to "development".
Really goes against a twenty year trend.
For me, it's an article of faith above just about all others.
It should have been applied in Tasmania with logging processes, but the continued trend by politicians is away from a locale's consideration, after all the FTA's say that outside capital must have precedence over a locale and its inhabitant's concerns. Instead, history of enviro since Gunns has indicated that, far from politicians and developers recognising the necessity of EPA's and proper forward planning, there is seen an institutionalised, studied denialism written into corporate and political conduct on these things- the curent fedminister, Burke's, ambivalence and probable duplicity on these issues is the real motif of the times.

its good that the government is trying to make sure that not all of the huge profit being made doesn't just end up in the hands of the mining industry's owners (about 80 per cent of whom are foreign).

The MRRT will pay for the various concessions on superannuation, company tax and small business.

"the passage of the (much watered down) Mineral Resources Rent Tax (MRRT) in the House of Representatives"

It was the political campaign run by the three big foreign own mining companies--BHP, Rio Tinto and Xstra--- and supported by the Coalition that watered down the MRRT. The idea behind a resources rent tax is that the money raised would to be spent on reducing company tax in order to protect manufacturing from the effects of the mining boom. It was designed to address the two-speed economy problem.

Ironical isn't it. The populist campaign run by Tony Abbott has seen them end up in the unpopular position of saying no to the tax on the big miners, and promising to rescind it asap.

Why does the Coalition reject any mining tax, when the big miners support it? It's never made clear by Abbott.

Parliamentary shenanigans.
The government is a little bit less a 'minority' today than it was yesterday and the COALition is an even more 'minority' oppo than it was yesterday.
You can't see it in Moir's cartoon above but just upframe from Tony there is a bloody great chunk of ceiling heading downwards in his direction.

haha very humorous. I think our new speaker could still be dead man walking though.
Mal Brough will be smiling either way.

The timing is perfect for this thread starter. The Slipper/Jenkins events could be a game changer.

Dunno about Mal smiling.
I had a look at the numbers for Slipper's electorate and he was only a little bit ahead of ALP plus Greens in 2010.
IF [big 'if' I know] he decides to run again as an Independent AND he gets preferences from the ALP and the Greens ahead of the NLP candidate [whoever] then IF [again]he gets some sort of personal vote, say anything in the range of 10% total, then he would win with an increased majority.
Depending on who runs second and so on.
Maybe the ALP will benefit from his preferences.
Weird ain't it?
I reckon Mal is probably pretty unhappy right now,
As he deserves to be.

I think the Kattastrophe Party will be a factor in many seats too.

Lets see how it turns out . Slipper has a lot of baggage from drinking too much