Draft:Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Australia)

The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) is a federal profits-based tax levied by the Australian Government on the extraction of petroleum resources, including crude oil, natural gas, condensate, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Introduced under the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987, it took effect on 15 January 1988 during the Hawke Labor Government. Originally designed for offshore petroleum projects, its scope expanded in the 1990s to encompass onshore operations and the North West Shelf.^[3] Administered by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the PRRT imposes a 40% tax rate on the taxable profit of individual petroleum projects, calculated annually by subtracting eligible expenditures from assessable receipts.^[4] Its primary objective is to capture a share of the "economic rent"—profits beyond a normal return on investment—from Australia’s finite petroleum resources, aiming to balance industry incentives with public revenue generation.^[5][6] Since its inception, the PRRT has been a contentious policy, reflecting broader debates over resource taxation in Australia. Critics, including environmental groups and progressive political parties, contend that its structure allows multinational corporations to reduce tax liabilities through generous deductions, resulting in lower-than-anticipated revenue.^[7] In contrast, the petroleum industry argues that the tax stifles investment in a sector that employs approximately 314,800 people (2.2% of the workforce) and contributes significantly to Australia’s GDP.^[8][9] Recent reforms, notably the 2023 deductions cap on liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, seek to address these criticisms by enhancing revenue collection.^[10] Amid these debates, the Queensland Greens have proposed a state-owned mining company, "Queensland Minerals," to capture profits from critical minerals in Queensland’s North West Minerals Province, critiquing the PRRT’s federal framework and advocating for public ownership to ensure equitable resource wealth distribution.^[11][12] This article provides a detailed examination of the PRRT, covering its overview, history, calculation and administration, political and industry responses, criticisms and controversies, recent developments, and economic impact, with a focus on integrating diverse perspectives, including the Queensland Greens’ policy. Overview The PRRT applies a 40% tax rate to the taxable profit of each petroleum project, assessed on a project-by-project basis rather than at the company level.^[13] The taxable profit is determined using the following formula:

Taxable Profit=Assessable Receipts−Deductible Expenditure−Transferred Exploration Expenditure\text{Taxable Profit} = \text{Assessable Receipts} - \text{Deductible Expenditure} - \text{Transferred Exploration Expenditure}\text{Taxable Profit} = \text{Assessable Receipts} - \text{Deductible Expenditure} - \text{Transferred Exploration Expenditure} PRRT Liability=Taxable Profit×40%\text{PRRT Liability} = \text{Taxable Profit} \times 40\%\text{PRRT Liability} = \text{Taxable Profit} \times 40\% Assessable receipts include revenues derived from marketable petroleum commodities such as crude oil, natural gas, condensate, and LPG.^[14] Deductible expenditures cover a broad range of costs, including operational expenses, capital investments, and exploration costs.^[15] If deductible expenditures exceed assessable receipts in a given year, no PRRT is payable, and unused deductions are carried forward, uplifted by the government long-term bond rate plus an additional factor (e.g., 5% for exploration expenditures).^[15] A pivotal reform in 2023 introduced a deductions cap for LNG projects, limiting deductions to 90% of assessable receipts, ensuring a minimum taxable profit of 10% annually.^[16] Unlike traditional volume-based royalties, the PRRT targets economic rent, aiming to encourage exploration and development while securing a public return from resource extraction.^[17] Entities subject to the PRRT must lodge annual returns and pay quarterly installments, with the ATO issuing refunds if installments exceed the final assessed liability.^[18] This profit-based, project-specific design differentiates the PRRT from other resource taxes, such as the repealed Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT), which applied a broader scope to iron ore and coal mining.^[19] History The PRRT was introduced in the 1980s as part of economic reforms under the Hawke Labor Government, replacing a royalty-based system considered inadequate for capturing revenue from highly profitable offshore petroleum projects amid volatile oil prices.^[20] Enacted on 15 January 1988, the tax faced immediate opposition from the petroleum industry. Companies like BHP and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) launched a public relations campaign to erode political support, prompting the Liberal and National parties to retract their initial backing.^[21] Nevertheless, Labor’s parliamentary majority secured its passage.^[22] In the 1990s, the PRRT’s application expanded to include onshore petroleum projects and the North West Shelf, reflecting its adaptability to diverse operational contexts.^[23] Over time, its effectiveness came under scrutiny, particularly with the rise of LNG exports. A 2018 Treasury Review identified inefficiencies in taxing LNG projects, leading to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms) Act 2023. This legislation introduced the deductions cap to increase revenue from LNG exports, a sector that generated $120 billion between 2012 and 2022.^[24][25] Resource taxation in Australia has long been politically charged. Historical events, such as the 1975 dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and the 2010 ousting of Kevin Rudd, have been partly attributed to mining industry opposition to tax reforms, highlighting the sector’s lobbying power and media influence.^[26] The PRRT’s development reflects these ongoing tensions, navigating industry resistance and public revenue objectives. Calculation and Administration The ATO provides comprehensive guidelines for calculating PRRT liabilities.^[27] Taxable profit is computed by deducting eligible expenditures from assessable receipts, with the 40% tax rate applied to the resulting profit.^[28] The 2023 deductions cap for LNG projects limits deductions to 90% of receipts, with excess deductions carried forward and uplifted.^[29] Entities file annual PRRT returns and pay quarterly installments, receiving refunds from the ATO if overpayments occur.^[30] A 2009 Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) audit commended the ATO’s administration of the PRRT but identified challenges, including taxpayer uncertainty over expenditure classification, which led to compliance disputes.^[31] While the audit found no systemic bias, it noted that some disputes involved potential liabilities exceeding $1 billion, underscoring the tax’s complexity and economic stakes.^[32] Political and Industry Responses The PRRT has provoked varied responses from industry, political parties, and unions, reflecting divergent priorities in Australia’s resource policy landscape. Industry Opposition The APPEA and major corporations like BHP assert that the PRRT’s 40% rate discourages investment in exploration and development, vital for a sector contributing approximately 10% to Australia’s GDP.^[33][34] Senator Susan McDonald (Liberal) has labeled Labor’s regulatory stance as “hostile,” arguing it exacerbates commodity price volatility and undermines industry stability.^[35] Political Perspectives Australian Labor Party (ALP): The ALP views the PRRT as a critical tool for funding public services, with the 2023 deductions cap aligning with its commitment to equitable resource wealth distribution.^[36][37] The party has historically championed resource taxation to support social programs, balancing industry growth with fiscal responsibility.

Liberal-National Coalition: The Coalition advocates for lighter taxation to bolster Australia’s competitiveness in global energy markets. Its 2023 platform emphasizes regulatory reduction to attract investment, critiquing Labor’s reforms as overly burdensome.^[38]

Queensland Greens: The Queensland Greens have sharply criticized the PRRT’s effectiveness, proposing "Queensland Minerals," a publicly owned mining company, as an alternative model.^[11][12] Targeting the North West Minerals Province’s estimated $500 billion in critical minerals, the policy involves a $4 billion initial investment from increased coal and gas royalties, projecting $14 billion in revenue from 2030 to 2050.^[39][40] The Greens highlight Norway’s 55% revenue capture from petroleum resources compared to Australia’s 3%, arguing for state ownership to maximize public benefits.^[40] The initiative prioritizes employment for former fossil fuel workers and a 15% First Nations staff target, operating under rigorous environmental and cultural heritage standards.^[41]

Union Perspectives The Mining and Energy Union (MEU) indirectly supports robust taxation policies like the PRRT to fund worker benefits and regional development, contrasting with the Coalition’s industry-aligned stance.^[42] Unions emphasize the need for resource revenues to support workforce transitions as the energy sector evolves. Criticisms and Controversies The PRRT has faced sustained criticism across multiple dimensions, fueling calls for reform or alternative approaches. Revenue Shortfalls Analyses by The Australia Institute and the Queensland Greens underscore the PRRT’s failure to generate substantial revenue, with gas corporations paying only 4% in royalties on $120 billion in LNG exports from 2012 to 2022.^[43][44] Australia’s 3% revenue capture starkly contrasts with Norway’s 55%, prompting accusations that the PRRT benefits multinational firms over taxpayers.^[45] The Queensland Greens cite this disparity as a justification for Queensland Minerals, arguing that public ownership could better secure resource wealth.^[44] Administrative Complexity The 2009 ANAO audit praised the ATO’s oversight but flagged taxpayer confusion over expenditure classifications, leading to disputes and litigation.^[46] Industry representatives have criticized a perceived “pro-revenue bias” in ATO interpretations, though the audit found no evidence of systemic issues.^[47] This complexity has hindered effective compliance and public trust in the tax’s administration. Environmental and Social Concerns Environmentalists, alongside the Queensland Greens, argue that the PRRT fails to account for the environmental costs of petroleum extraction or incentivize sustainable practices.^[48] The Greens’ Queensland Minerals policy addresses these concerns by mandating stringent environmental standards and First Nations consent processes, positioning it as a socially responsible alternative to the PRRT’s framework.^[49] Industry Influence The petroleum industry’s historical opposition, including media campaigns that outspent government efforts, has shaped PRRT discourse.^[50] Critics point to the sector’s role in political upheavals—such as Whitlam’s 1975 dismissal and Rudd’s 2010 removal—as evidence of its influence over resource tax policy, raising questions about democratic accountability.^[50] Recent Developments The 2023 deductions cap, effective from 1 July, aims to boost LNG revenue amid rising global energy prices, addressing long-standing revenue shortfall concerns.^[51] However, industry groups warn that it may deter investment, potentially offsetting economic gains.^[52] Concurrently, the Queensland Greens unveiled their Queensland Minerals proposal in September 2024, leveraging the North West Minerals Province’s $500 billion in critical minerals as a counterpoint to the PRRT’s federal focus.^[11][12] The ALP’s 2023 platform reinforces its commitment to resource taxation, while the Coalition continues to push for deregulation, highlighting ongoing political divides.^[53][54] Economic Impact The petroleum sector underpins significant economic activity, supporting 314,800 jobs and driving regional development, particularly in Queensland and Western Australia.^[55] However, debates persist over the PRRT’s ability to balance industry growth with revenue generation. The Queensland Greens project that Queensland Minerals could create 1,000 direct jobs, transitioning workers from fossil fuels while bolstering state revenue.^[56] Critics, including Senator McDonald, caution that excessive taxation risks stifling investment, potentially destabilizing commodity markets.^[57] Australia’s low revenue capture has spurred calls for a sovereign wealth fund akin to Norway’s, which has amassed over $1 trillion from petroleum revenues—a model absent in Australia’s fiscal strategy.^[58]

Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Australia) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) is a federal profits-based tax levied by the Australian Government on the extraction of petroleum resources, including crude oil, natural gas, condensate, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).^[1] Introduced under the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987, it took effect on 15 January 1988 during the Hawke Labor Government.^[2] Originally designed for offshore petroleum projects, its scope expanded in the 1990s to encompass onshore operations and the North West Shelf.^[3] Administered by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the PRRT imposes a 40% tax rate on the taxable profit of individual petroleum projects, calculated annually by subtracting eligible expenditures from assessable receipts.^[4] Its primary objective is to capture a share of the "economic rent"—profits beyond a normal return on investment—from Australia’s finite petroleum resources, aiming to balance industry incentives with public revenue generation.^[5][6] Since its inception, the PRRT has been a contentious policy, reflecting broader debates over resource taxation in Australia. Critics, including environmental groups and progressive political parties, contend that its structure allows multinational corporations to reduce tax liabilities through generous deductions, resulting in lower-than-anticipated revenue.^[7] In contrast, the petroleum industry argues that the tax stifles investment in a sector that employs approximately 314,800 people (2.2% of the workforce) and contributes significantly to Australia’s GDP.^[8][9] Recent reforms, notably the 2023 deductions cap on liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, seek to address these criticisms by enhancing revenue collection.^[10] Amid these debates, the Queensland Greens have proposed a state-owned mining company, "Queensland Minerals," to capture profits from critical minerals in Queensland’s North West Minerals Province, critiquing the PRRT’s federal framework and advocating for public ownership to ensure equitable resource wealth distribution.^[11][12] This article provides a detailed examination of the PRRT, covering its overview, history, calculation and administration, political and industry responses, criticisms and controversies, recent developments, and economic impact, with a focus on integrating diverse perspectives, including the Queensland Greens’ policy. Overview The PRRT applies a 40% tax rate to the taxable profit of each petroleum project, assessed on a project-by-project basis rather than at the company level.^[13] The taxable profit is determined using the following formula: Taxable Profit=Assessable Receipts−Deductible Expenditure−Transferred Exploration Expenditure\text{Taxable Profit} = \text{Assessable Receipts} - \text{Deductible Expenditure} - \text{Transferred Exploration Expenditure}\text{Taxable Profit} = \text{Assessable Receipts} - \text{Deductible Expenditure} - \text{Transferred Exploration Expenditure} PRRT Liability=Taxable Profit×40%\text{PRRT Liability} = \text{Taxable Profit} \times 40\%\text{PRRT Liability} = \text{Taxable Profit} \times 40\% Assessable receipts include revenues derived from marketable petroleum commodities such as crude oil, natural gas, condensate, and LPG.^[14] Deductible expenditures cover a broad range of costs, including operational expenses, capital investments, and exploration costs.^[15] If deductible expenditures exceed assessable receipts in a given year, no PRRT is payable, and unused deductions are carried forward, uplifted by the government long-term bond rate plus an additional factor (e.g., 5% for exploration expenditures).^[15] A pivotal reform in 2023 introduced a deductions cap for LNG projects, limiting deductions to 90% of assessable receipts, ensuring a minimum taxable profit of 10% annually.^[16] Unlike traditional volume-based royalties, the PRRT targets economic rent, aiming to encourage exploration and development while securing a public return from resource extraction.^[17] Entities subject to the PRRT must lodge annual returns and pay quarterly installments, with the ATO issuing refunds if installments exceed the final assessed liability.^[18] This profit-based, project-specific design differentiates the PRRT from other resource taxes, such as the repealed Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT), which applied a broader scope to iron ore and coal mining.^[19] History The PRRT was introduced in the 1980s as part of economic reforms under the Hawke Labor Government, replacing a royalty-based system considered inadequate for capturing revenue from highly profitable offshore petroleum projects amid volatile oil prices.^[20] Enacted on 15 January 1988, the tax faced immediate opposition from the petroleum industry. Companies like BHP and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) launched a public relations campaign to erode political support, prompting the Liberal and National parties to retract their initial backing.^[21] Nevertheless, Labor’s parliamentary majority secured its passage.^[22] In the 1990s, the PRRT’s application expanded to include onshore petroleum projects and the North West Shelf, reflecting its adaptability to diverse operational contexts.^[23] Over time, its effectiveness came under scrutiny, particularly with the rise of LNG exports. A 2018 Treasury Review identified inefficiencies in taxing LNG projects, leading to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms) Act 2023. This legislation introduced the deductions cap to increase revenue from LNG exports, a sector that generated $120 billion between 2012 and 2022.^[24][25] Resource taxation in Australia has long been politically charged. Historical events, such as the 1975 dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and the 2010 ousting of Kevin Rudd, have been partly attributed to mining industry opposition to tax reforms, highlighting the sector’s lobbying power and media influence.^[26] The PRRT’s development reflects these ongoing tensions, navigating industry resistance and public revenue objectives. Calculation and Administration The ATO provides comprehensive guidelines for calculating PRRT liabilities.^[27] Taxable profit is computed by deducting eligible expenditures from assessable receipts, with the 40% tax rate applied to the resulting profit.^[28] The 2023 deductions cap for LNG projects limits deductions to 90% of receipts, with excess deductions carried forward and uplifted.^[29] Entities file annual PRRT returns and pay quarterly installments, receiving refunds from the ATO if overpayments occur.^[30] A 2009 Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) audit commended the ATO’s administration of the PRRT but identified challenges, including taxpayer uncertainty over expenditure classification, which led to compliance disputes.^[31] While the audit found no systemic bias, it noted that some disputes involved potential liabilities exceeding $1 billion, underscoring the tax’s complexity and economic stakes.^[32] Political and Industry Responses The PRRT has provoked varied responses from industry, political parties, and unions, reflecting divergent priorities in Australia’s resource policy landscape. Industry Opposition The APPEA and major corporations like BHP assert that the PRRT’s 40% rate discourages investment in exploration and development, vital for a sector contributing approximately 10% to Australia’s GDP.^[33][34] Senator Susan McDonald (Liberal) has labeled Labor’s regulatory stance as “hostile,” arguing it exacerbates commodity price volatility and undermines industry stability.^[35] Political Perspectives Australian Labor Party (ALP): The ALP views the PRRT as a critical tool for funding public services, with the 2023 deductions cap aligning with its commitment to equitable resource wealth distribution.^[36][37] The party has historically championed resource taxation to support social programs, balancing industry growth with fiscal responsibility.

Liberal-National Coalition: The Coalition advocates for lighter taxation to bolster Australia’s competitiveness in global energy markets. Its 2023 platform emphasizes regulatory reduction to attract investment, critiquing Labor’s reforms as overly burdensome.^[38]

Queensland Greens: The Queensland Greens have sharply criticized the PRRT’s effectiveness, proposing "Queensland Minerals," a publicly owned mining company, as an alternative model.^[11][12] Targeting the North West Minerals Province’s estimated $500 billion in critical minerals, the policy involves a $4 billion initial investment from increased coal and gas royalties, projecting $14 billion in revenue from 2030 to 2050.^[39][40] The Greens highlight Norway’s 55% revenue capture from petroleum resources compared to Australia’s 3%, arguing for state ownership to maximize public benefits.^[40] The initiative prioritizes employment for former fossil fuel workers and a 15% First Nations staff target, operating under rigorous environmental and cultural heritage standards.^[41]

Union Perspectives The Mining and Energy Union (MEU) indirectly supports robust taxation policies like the PRRT to fund worker benefits and regional development, contrasting with the Coalition’s industry-aligned stance.^[42] Unions emphasize the need for resource revenues to support workforce transitions as the energy sector evolves. Criticisms and Controversies The PRRT has faced sustained criticism across multiple dimensions, fueling calls for reform or alternative approaches. Revenue Shortfalls Analyses by The Australia Institute and the Queensland Greens underscore the PRRT’s failure to generate substantial revenue, with gas corporations paying only 4% in royalties on $120 billion in LNG exports from 2012 to 2022.^[43][44] Australia’s 3% revenue capture starkly contrasts with Norway’s 55%, prompting accusations that the PRRT benefits multinational firms over taxpayers.^[45] The Queensland Greens cite this disparity as a justification for Queensland Minerals, arguing that public ownership could better secure resource wealth.^[44] Administrative Complexity The 2009 ANAO audit praised the ATO’s oversight but flagged taxpayer confusion over expenditure classifications, leading to disputes and litigation.^[46] Industry representatives have criticized a perceived “pro-revenue bias” in ATO interpretations, though the audit found no evidence of systemic issues.^[47] This complexity has hindered effective compliance and public trust in the tax’s administration. Environmental and Social Concerns Environmentalists, alongside the Queensland Greens, argue that the PRRT fails to account for the environmental costs of petroleum extraction or incentivize sustainable practices.^[48] The Greens’ Queensland Minerals policy addresses these concerns by mandating stringent environmental standards and First Nations consent processes, positioning it as a socially responsible alternative to the PRRT’s framework.^[49] Industry Influence The petroleum industry’s historical opposition, including media campaigns that outspent government efforts, has shaped PRRT discourse.^[50] Critics point to the sector’s role in political upheavals—such as Whitlam’s 1975 dismissal and Rudd’s 2010 removal—as evidence of its influence over resource tax policy, raising questions about democratic accountability.^[50] Recent Developments The 2023 deductions cap, effective from 1 July, aims to boost LNG revenue amid rising global energy prices, addressing long-standing revenue shortfall concerns.^[51] However, industry groups warn that it may deter investment, potentially offsetting economic gains.^[52] Concurrently, the Queensland Greens unveiled their Queensland Minerals proposal in September 2024, leveraging the North West Minerals Province’s $500 billion in critical minerals as a counterpoint to the PRRT’s federal focus.^[11][12] The ALP’s 2023 platform reinforces its commitment to resource taxation, while the Coalition continues to push for deregulation, highlighting ongoing political divides.^[53][54] Economic Impact The petroleum sector underpins significant economic activity, supporting 314,800 jobs and driving regional development, particularly in Queensland and Western Australia.^[55] However, debates persist over the PRRT’s ability to balance industry growth with revenue generation. The Queensland Greens project that Queensland Minerals could create 1,000 direct jobs, transitioning workers from fossil fuels while bolstering state revenue.^[56] Critics, including Senator McDonald, caution that excessive taxation risks stifling investment, potentially destabilizing commodity markets.^[57] Australia’s low revenue capture has spurred calls for a sovereign wealth fund akin to Norway’s, which has amassed over $1 trillion from petroleum revenues—a model absent in Australia’s fiscal strategy.^[58]

References

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). Administration of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/administration-the-petroleum-resource-rent-tax

Hudson, Marc. Petroleum Resource Rent Tax 1987. https://marchudson.net/academia/phd-2014-to-2017/australia/petroleum-resource-rent-tax-1987/

[Placeholder: Source on PRRT expansion to onshore and North West Shelf]

Australian Taxation Office (ATO). How to Work Out PRRT. https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-excise-and-indirect-taxes/petroleum-resource-rent-tax/in-detail/what-you-need-to-know/work-out-prrt/how-to-work-out-prrt

Treasury.gov.au. Review of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/R2016-001_Australian_Tax_Office.pdf

The Australia Institute. What is the PRRT?. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/what-is-the-prrt/

Ibid.

Jobs and Skills Australia. Mining Industry Profile. https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au/data/occupation-and-industry-profiles/industries/mining

McDonald, Susan. Labor Pushes Australian Miners to Breaking Point. https://susanmcdonald.com.au/labor-pushes-australian-miners-to-breaking-point/

Australian Taxation Office (ATO). PRRT Deductions Cap. https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-excise-and-indirect-taxes/petroleum-resource-rent-tax/in-detail/what-you-need-to-know/work-out-prrt/how-to-work-out-prrt

Queensland Greens. Public Mining Company. https://greens.org.au/qld/public-mining

Berkman, Michael. Greens to Create a Publicly Owned Mining Company for Qld. https://www.michaelberkman.com.au/queenslandminerals_20240911

Holding Redlich. Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT). https://www.holdingredlich.com/petroleum-resource-rent-tax-prrt

Australian Taxation Office (ATO). PRRT Assessable Receipts. https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-excise-and-indirect-taxes/petroleum-resource-rent-tax/in-detail/what-you-need-to-know/work-out-prrt/prrt-assessable-receipts

Australian Taxation Office (ATO). PRRT Deductible Expenditure. https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-excise-and-indirect-taxes/petroleum-resource-rent-tax/in-detail/what-you-need-to-know/work-out-prrt/prrt-deductible-expenditure

Treasury.gov.au. Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms. https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2023-12345

Treasury.gov.au. 2018 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Review. https://treasury.gov.au/review/petroleum-resource-rent-tax-review

Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Lodging, Reporting, and Paying for PRRT. https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-excise-and-indirect-taxes/petroleum-resource-rent-tax/in-detail/what-you-need-to-know/work-out-prrt/lodging-reporting-and-paying-for-prrt

Wikipedia. Minerals Resource Rent Tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax

Hudson, Marc. Petroleum Resource Rent Tax 1987. https://marchudson.net/academia/phd-2014-to-2017/australia/petroleum-resource-rent-tax-1987/

Friendlyjordies. What REALLY Keeps Australia Going. YouTube, March 10, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oSEO8JxS8s

Ibid.

[Placeholder: Source on PRRT expansion]

Treasury.gov.au. 2018 PRRT Review. https://treasury.gov.au

Treasury.gov.au. Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms. https://treasury.gov.au

Friendlyjordies. What REALLY Keeps Australia Going. YouTube, March 10, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oSEO8JxS8s

Australian Taxation Office (ATO). How to Work Out PRRT. https://www.ato.gov.au

Ibid.

Australian Taxation Office (ATO). PRRT Deductions Cap. https://www.ato.gov.au

Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Lodging, Reporting, and Paying for PRRT. https://www.ato.gov.au

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). Administration of the PRRT. https://www.anao.gov.au

Ibid.

APPEA. Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. https://www.appea.com.au

BHP. Annual Report 2023. https://www.bhp.com

McDonald, Susan. Labor Pushes Miners to Breaking Point. https://susanmcdonald.com.au

ALP. 2023 National Platform. https://alp.org.au

Jobs and Skills Australia. Mining Industry Profile. https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au

Liberal Party. 2023 Platform. https://www.liberal.org.au

Queensland Greens. Public Mining Company. https://greens.org.au/qld/public-mining

Berkman, Michael. Greens to Create a Publicly Owned Mining Company for Qld. https://www.michaelberkman.com.au/queenslandminerals_20240911

Ibid.

Mining and Energy Union (MEU). Campaigns. https://meu.org.au

The Australia Institute. Gas Profits Untouched. https://australiainstitute.org.au

Queensland Greens. Public Mining Company. https://greens.org.au/qld/public-mining

Ibid.

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). Administration of the PRRT. https://www.anao.gov.au

Ibid.

Queensland Greens. Mining Policy. https://greens.org.au/qld/policies/mining

Queensland Greens. Public Mining Company. https://greens.org.au/qld/public-mining

Friendlyjordies. What REALLY Keeps Australia Going. YouTube, March 10, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oSEO8JxS8s

Australian Taxation Office (ATO). PRRT Deductions Cap. https://www.ato.gov.au

APPEA. Response to PRRT Reforms. https://www.appea.com.au

ALP. 2023 National Platform. https://alp.org.au

Liberal Party. 2023 Platform. https://www.liberal.org.au

Jobs and Skills Australia. Mining Industry Profile. https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au

Queensland Greens. Public Mining Company. https://greens.org.au/qld/public-mining

McDonald, Susan. Labor Pushes Miners to Breaking Point. https://susanmcdonald.com.au

Friendlyjordies. What REALLY Keeps Australia Going. YouTube, March 10, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oSEO8JxS8s