I would certainly agree with value adding before export of “our resources”.

It has reached the stage where scrap metal is becoming quite a profitable industry, but that scrap metal is mainly exported to other countries. So we export coal and iron ore, then we import manufactured goods, and when we wear these manufactured goods out, we export scrap.

All along the line, the value adding is done elsewhere.

It should also be asked how sustainable are the mining companies. One mining company operating in Australia uses 1,000,000 litres of diesel per day, and if peak oil becomes a reality, down go the profits, with little to show for Australia but a hole in the ground.

Having said that, the universities should be very aware of the necessity for value adding, when almost everything purchased by a university (or any school for that matter) is now imported.

I think this is a good idea for the reasons given. Another reason I would add is that if a Gillard government introduces some form of carbon pricing we are shooting ourselves in the foot by selling untaxed carbon to other countries. Currently Australia exports black thermal coal, coking coal and LNG. In the near future Australia will export pelletised brown coal and liquefied coal seam gas. It is bizarre that domestic consumers should pay some kind of carbon tax on these fossil fuels or their raw forms but export customers pay none. That's despite most other countries promising carbon cuts they don't quite seem to have gotten around to.

To illustrate the numbers involved a tonne of black thermal coal spot price $100 will generate about 2.4 tonnes of CO2 when burned. At say $20 per tonne of CO2 that's a carbon levy of $48, quite an increase. However a tonne of LNG spot price $400 might attract a carbon levy of half that say $24 but a much smaller increase in relative terms. Perhaps those importers could ask for the carbon levy to be refunded if they spend the money on green programs.

Apart from carbon taxes in lieu the levies could be imposed on what used to be called strategic reserves eg sales of pig iron to Japan in WW2. Some predict the Middle East will eventually cut oil exports to conserve the resource. If this happens there could be a global economic slowdown. On the other hand there will be more for future generations.

Sounds to me like the author is reinventing the wheel here. For
of course companies already pay state royalties on every tonne
exported. For minerals of course belong to the States, not
the Commonwealth. So is the Commonwealth simply trying to
muscle in on State income yet once again?

Taswegian,
There may be more for future generations, but what happens in the interim.

Australia is placing all its economic hopes on some export industries that are fuel intensive.

Nearly all mining and many agriculture industries gobble up large amounts of fuel, and then gobble up more in shipping the often heavy product to other countries.

Instead of churning more money into such industries, Australia has to develop products that are light in weight and can be produced with minimal fuel.

Hi !
I've just visited this forum. Happy to get acquainted with you. Thanks.

_______________
http://moviesonlinefree.biz

What I cannot understand is the Pythonesque historical link of this imposition? What was the catalyst for the conflict said to be at the foundation of organised labour in Oz? Was it not Eureka?