The claim asserts that the Coalition government claimed $13.7 billion in savings from scrapping the Mining Tax (Minerals Resource Rent Tax - MRRT), when in fact the tax itself generated revenue and the "savings" came from associated spending cuts, particularly the Schoolkids Bonus [1][2].
**The MRRT was repealed in 2014**: The Coalition, led by Tony Abbott, promised to repeal the MRRT at the 2010 and 2013 elections.
After winning the 2013 election, they introduced the Mining Tax Repeal Bill, which passed Parliament on September 2, 2014, and received Royal Assent on September 5, 2014 [3].
**The MRRT was a failed tax**: The MRRT, introduced by the Gillard Labor government on July 1, 2012, was a 30% tax on "super profits" from mining iron ore and coal.
It significantly underperformed revenue expectations:
- Original projection: $22.5 billion over first four years [3]
- May 2012 budget: Expected $3 billion for that financial year [3]
- October 2012: Revised down to $2 billion [3]
- May 2013: Expected receipts less than $200 million [3]
- August 2013 (PBO): Forecast increased to almost $6 billion over next four years, but still $16.5 billion below original projection [3]
**Repeal included associated spending cuts**: The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Act 2014 did indeed repeal associated spending measures including:
- Repeal of income support bonus [3]
- Repeal/amendments to Schoolkids Bonus [3]
However, the MRRT itself was generating minimal revenue (less than $200 million by 2013), meaning the "savings" primarily came from cutting the associated spending programs that were originally intended to be funded by the MRRT [1][2].
The $3,500 figure comes from analysis by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) showing that some low-income families would lose up to $3,500 per year from the combined repeal of the carbon tax and mining tax, including:
- Loss of Schoolkids Bonus ($410-$820 per year depending on number of children) [1]
- Loss of other tax offsets and benefits [1]
While the claim states it was "never associated with the Mining Tax," the historical record shows:
- The Schoolkids Bonus was introduced by the Gillard government as part of the package of measures associated with the MRRT [3]
- It replaced the previous Education Tax Refund system
- When the MRRT was repealed, the Coalition argued the associated spending measures should also be repealed since the tax funding them was being abolished [2]
Originally projected to raise $22.5 billion over four years, it raised only a fraction of that amount due to:
- Design flaws allowing significant deductions [3]
- Negotiations with mining companies that watered down the original RSPT (Resource Super Profits Tax) proposed by Kevin Rudd [3]
- Weakness in commodity prices affecting mining profits
Clive Palmer, himself a mining magnate, had significant business interests in the mining sector, raising questions about whether the repeal served public interest or private interests [3].
### ### Palmer Palmer United United Party Party 談判 tán pàn
### Alternative Government Approach
廢除 fèi chú 法案 fǎ àn 最初 zuì chū 在 zài 參議院 cān yì yuàn 失敗 shī bài , , 但 dàn 在 zài 與 yǔ Palmer Palmer United United Party Party 談判後通過 tán pàn hòu tōng guò 。 。
The Coalition's position was that the MRRT was a flawed tax that damaged Australia's international competitiveness and investment attractiveness.
Their alternative was to:
- Remove the tax to restore confidence in the mining sector
- Reduce the regulatory burden on the resources industry
- Cut associated spending programs that were now unfunded due to the tax's failure
It is generally considered a credible source for factual reporting, though like all media, it has editorial perspectives that may influence story framing.
The April 2014 fact-check article on Mathias Cormann's claims provides a more balanced assessment, noting that while the government's $13.7 billion figure was technically accurate in terms of budget impact, it required context about how that figure was achieved (through spending cuts rather than tax revenue) [2].
### ### Wikipedia Wikipedia - - Minerals Minerals Resource Resource Rent Rent Tax Tax
The most relevant comparison is Labor's own handling of the original RSPT, which preceded the MRRT:
- In 2010, Kevin Rudd's Labor government proposed the RSPT, a 40% tax on mining super profits
- This triggered a $22 million advertising campaign by mining companies opposing the tax [3]
- The campaign contributed to Rudd's removal as Prime Minister
- Julia Gillard replaced the RSPT with the weaker MRRT after negotiations with mining companies
- The MRRT raised only a fraction of projected revenue, making it a policy failure
When the Coalition sought to repeal the carbon tax (another Labor policy), Labor opposed the repeal despite the carbon tax also having revenue implications.
- - 2010 2010 年 nián , , Kevin Kevin Rudd Rudd 的 de Labor Labor 政府 zhèng fǔ 提出 tí chū 了 le RSPT RSPT , , 對 duì 礦業 kuàng yè 超額 chāo é 利潤 lì rùn 徵收 zhēng shōu 40% 40% 的 de 稅收 shuì shōu
The Coalition argued that removing the carbon tax would reduce costs for businesses and households, while Labor argued it was necessary for climate action.
The principle of repealing associated spending measures when repealing a tax is not unique to the Coalition:
- When taxes fail to generate projected revenue, governments typically must adjust spending
- The Gillard government itself had to revise spending plans when MRRT revenue fell short
- The Coalition's argument was that if the tax was abolished, the unfunded spending should also be abolished
The Abbott government justified the MRRT repeal on several grounds:
1. **Tax was failing**: By 2013, the MRRT was raising less than $200 million instead of the projected $3 billion annually.
Continuing a failing tax made no fiscal sense [3].
2. **Investment concerns**: The mining industry argued the tax reduced Australia's competitiveness for mining investment compared to other jurisdictions [3].
3. **Integrity of budget**: The government argued that spending programs should not continue without the tax revenue that was supposed to fund them.
4. **Simplification**: Removing the MRRT reduced regulatory complexity for mining companies.
Critics raised legitimate concerns:
1. **Timing**: Repealing the tax when commodity markets were down meant the government gave up potential future revenue if commodity prices recovered.
2. **Associated cuts**: The repeal of the Schoolkids Bonus and income support bonus hurt low-income families who had come to rely on these payments [1].
3. **Distributional impact**: The $3,500 figure for some families represented a significant loss, particularly for those with multiple children and lower incomes [1].
4. **Palmer United influence**: The negotiations with Clive Palmer (a mining magnate) raised concerns about whether the repeal served public or private interests [3].
**Tax repeals with spending cuts** is a standard government practice:
- When governments repeal taxes, they typically must adjust associated spending
- The Labor government itself had to revise MRRT-linked spending when revenue fell short
- The issue here is the scale of the spending cuts relative to the minimal tax revenue being lost
**The Schoolkids Bonus specifically**:
- Was a Gillard government initiative that replaced the Education Tax Refund
- Was linked to the MRRT revenue package (contrary to the claim that it was "never associated")
- Its repeal affected millions of families with school-aged children
核心 hé xīn 事實 shì shí 主張 zhǔ zhāng 基本 jī běn 準確 zhǔn què : :
The core factual claims are substantially accurate:
- The government did claim budget improvements from repealing the MRRT
- The tax itself was generating minimal revenue by 2013 (less than $200 million vs. $3 billion projected)
- The "savings" came primarily from cutting associated spending measures including the Schoolkids Bonus
- Some households did face losses up to $3,500 from the combined repeal of various tax benefits
However, the claim is misleading in several ways:
1. **Incorrect about Schoolkids Bonus association**: The Schoolkids Bonus was indeed associated with the MRRT package, introduced by the Gillard government as part of the same policy suite.
- - 政府 zhèng fǔ 確實聲 què shí shēng 稱 chēng 從 cóng 廢除 fèi chú MRRT MRRT 中 zhōng 獲得 huò dé 預算 yù suàn 改善 gǎi shàn
It replaced the Education Tax Refund and was intended to be funded by MRRT revenue.
2. **Omits MRRT failure**: The claim doesn't acknowledge that the MRRT had already collapsed as a revenue source, making its repeal largely symbolic from a revenue perspective.
The tax was generating virtually nothing by 2013.
3. **Misleading on $3.7 billion net loss**: The claim that scrapping the tax would result in a $3.7 billion net loss appears to conflate different figures.
The actual MRRT revenue was minimal; any "loss" figures would relate to projected (but never realized) future revenue.
4. **Frames as hidden cuts**: Describing the spending cuts as "hidden in the repeal bill" is misleading - the repeal legislation explicitly included the associated spending cuts, as noted in the parliamentary record and public debate.
5. **Lacks Labor context**: The claim doesn't acknowledge that the MRRT was itself a failed Labor policy that never achieved its revenue targets, making the Coalition's repeal of a failing tax politically understandable even if the associated spending cuts were controversial.
**The fair summary would be**: "The Coalition repealed the failing MRRT (which was generating less than $200 million annually instead of projected $3 billion) and used the repeal to also abolish associated spending programs including the Schoolkids Bonus.
- - 一些 yī xiē 家庭 jiā tíng 確實 què shí 因 yīn 各種 gè zhǒng 稅收 shuì shōu 福利 fú lì 的 de 綜合 zōng hé 廢除 fèi chú 而 ér 面臨 miàn lín 高達 gāo dá 3500 3500 澳元 ào yuán 的 de 損失 sǔn shī
While the government claimed budget improvements from this package, low-income families lost benefits worth up to $3,500 annually.
核心 hé xīn 事實 shì shí 主張 zhǔ zhāng 基本 jī běn 準確 zhǔn què : :
The core factual claims are substantially accurate:
- The government did claim budget improvements from repealing the MRRT
- The tax itself was generating minimal revenue by 2013 (less than $200 million vs. $3 billion projected)
- The "savings" came primarily from cutting associated spending measures including the Schoolkids Bonus
- Some households did face losses up to $3,500 from the combined repeal of various tax benefits
However, the claim is misleading in several ways:
1. **Incorrect about Schoolkids Bonus association**: The Schoolkids Bonus was indeed associated with the MRRT package, introduced by the Gillard government as part of the same policy suite.
- - 政府 zhèng fǔ 確實聲 què shí shēng 稱 chēng 從 cóng 廢除 fèi chú MRRT MRRT 中 zhōng 獲得 huò dé 預算 yù suàn 改善 gǎi shàn
It replaced the Education Tax Refund and was intended to be funded by MRRT revenue.
2. **Omits MRRT failure**: The claim doesn't acknowledge that the MRRT had already collapsed as a revenue source, making its repeal largely symbolic from a revenue perspective.
The tax was generating virtually nothing by 2013.
3. **Misleading on $3.7 billion net loss**: The claim that scrapping the tax would result in a $3.7 billion net loss appears to conflate different figures.
The actual MRRT revenue was minimal; any "loss" figures would relate to projected (but never realized) future revenue.
4. **Frames as hidden cuts**: Describing the spending cuts as "hidden in the repeal bill" is misleading - the repeal legislation explicitly included the associated spending cuts, as noted in the parliamentary record and public debate.
5. **Lacks Labor context**: The claim doesn't acknowledge that the MRRT was itself a failed Labor policy that never achieved its revenue targets, making the Coalition's repeal of a failing tax politically understandable even if the associated spending cuts were controversial.
**The fair summary would be**: "The Coalition repealed the failing MRRT (which was generating less than $200 million annually instead of projected $3 billion) and used the repeal to also abolish associated spending programs including the Schoolkids Bonus.
- - 一些 yī xiē 家庭 jiā tíng 確實 què shí 因 yīn 各種 gè zhǒng 稅收 shuì shōu 福利 fú lì 的 de 綜合 zōng hé 廢除 fèi chú 而 ér 面臨 miàn lín 高達 gāo dá 3500 3500 澳元 ào yuán 的 de 損失 sǔn shī
While the government claimed budget improvements from this package, low-income families lost benefits worth up to $3,500 annually.