Remember, this is the woman that, when the GFC first hit, was on Radio National's PM program quoting thoroughly discredited Reaganite "trickle down economics" as the solution.

Australia's resources are finite and, if we don't dig them up today, they will still be there tomorrow - and probably at a higher value because other nations will have depleted theirs. (Of course, whether the energy to dig up anyone's resources in the future will exist is another question.) If we had a non-growing population then we would be far less concerned about rapidly expanding our mining base.

I can't see the problem.
Wealth redistribution in lieu of wealth creation worked for Greece.

Mining giant Xstrata announced it would cancel all exploration activity in the Mount Isa and Cloncurry regions of Queensland, which has put a cloud of uncertainty over jobs and the health of the regional economy.

I think that when we see through the Xstradas of this world and all the negative comments from BHP and from Rio Tinto (70% overseas owned), we should institute an arrangement in that if they do play politics, which the feckless Abbott seems to be arranging and do not proceed with programs in place at the moment, then they stand to have those leases removed from their care and opened up for others to take over the exploration and development.
Now that should shut them up.
These resources have been ripped from Australia soil for years and will continue to be if Julie Bishop has her way, coming as she does from the state that does most of the 'ripping' and which has never paid its fair share of the ever diminishing resources owned by all Australians, not just Julie Bishop's state and the monolithic BHP and Rio Tinto. Now we have a new leader of the bunch, Fortesque and his new found wealth who has become one of the wealthiest men in the country based on his reserves, which are really our reserves, something he seems to forget, conveniently.
As for Julie Bishop in her naive emphasis on 'spin', let us wait and see the spin she applies to fighting an election on behalf of the miners of this country when ignoring all the voters who will benefit form such a tax distribution. Just one more example of the knave-like Abbott falling into a hole of his own making. An alternative PM, hardly.

The ideas expressed in this article are deficient.
Resources are a capital asset. Depleting those assets quickly to pay for current consumption of imports will lead to longer term problems in an economy where much manufacturing industry has been largely destroyed.
A good example is the steel industry. After WW2, at the initiative of farsighted leaders such as Ben Chifley and Essington Lewis, Australia developed a white goods industry, a substantial fabricating capacity, an automotive manufacturing industry and major infrastructure initiatives and as a consequence our steel industry expanded.
The first two of these industries have either disappeared or have shrunk substantially as imports of whitegoods, rail wagons, reinforcing steel, fasteners and such like has increased. If the automotive industry disappears the only significant flat products market available to Bluescope will be roofing and similar sheeting.
Where will that leave our heirs when our raw materials have all been exported? Do we wish to go back to being boundary riders along the squatter's fences?
Pinning our future on exporting unprocessed materials is stupid but that is what BHP-Billiton's and RIO's present leaders want this country to do. If the super profits tax leads to some diminution in their raw materials activities and some revival of export replacement manufacturing then this country will benefit.

'Wealth redistribution rather than wealth creation is the Labor way.' It is also the way to a healthier, happier, better educated society - read 'The Spirit Level' for the evidence, it is compelling.

Australia's approach to its resources reminds me of someone who has inherited a bucket of uncut diamonds, and decides to sell them as quickly as possible as-is, rather than cutting and polishing them and making them into jewelery, worth many times more. What on earth will we do when the iron ore and coal has all been sent to China, and we have spent the income buying Chinese goods?

Spot on Candide.

Redistribution of wealth is about closing the gap - it is not about strangling business enterprise despite all the red faced bluster and carry on we are seeing from the mining companies.

What about the value of labour and the value of the primary product. And most importantly that the value of those minerals is recognised and the owners (the Australian people and government) are appropriately paid for those resources.

What other owner/wholesaler sells his products at a loss so that the retailer can take all the spoils.

This is not the same as making business unviable as the detractors would have it, profits are still there to be made. It would be madness and counterproductive to eradicate profit as there would be no incentive - typical scaremongering tactics.

*It would be madness and counterproductive to eradicate profit as there would be no incentive - typical scaremongering tactics.*

Pelican, you like many on OLO, simply don't understand the fundamentals of this dispute.

The miners have never claimed that they are not prepared to pay
royalties on minerals mined. In fact they already pay plenty.
You seem to think not enough, fair enough.

What they want is reliability and integrity from Govt. If Govt
encourages them and even threatens them, as has happened,
to invest and develop, making the terms clear before they invest
billions, that is fundamental to this dispute.

They then know where they stand and can decide to take a calculated
risk or not. Or look at other alternatives globally. Or decide
not to proceed with anything. That is what happened with the
petroleum tax, Govt did show integrity and its paid off for all
parties concerned.

Not in this case, now. Govts have encouraged them, coaxed them,
threatened them, into risking 10s of billions of $ on local
developments. Now that they have spent all that money,
Govt is basically saying "bad luck sucker, now we'll screw you
for things that were never agreed on, but we will, because we can."

If anyone took you for such a ride in your life, you would be
screaming from the rooftops. What we now know is that the Govt's
word cannot be trusted. Miners might have to demand iron-clad
written guarantees from Govt in future, before investing another
cent.

Realise also that the mining companies are terrified that if one country gets away with this then the others will follow - or do you think Canada will let its citizens get ripped off? Mining is not a game that all nations can play - e.g. if its uranium you want then you only really have Canada or Australia to choose from ....(or hey - lets scrap some more nuclear warheads so we can pretend there is not a problem in uranium supplies to our current reactor fleet for a few years more). The nations that possess the resources have the upper hand and the companies just have to dance to that tune as the world's quality resources decline. I think that the Labor party realises that.

My thought exactly, it's a 'no brainer' of monumental proportions.

As the author rightly says, it's future mining projects which are at greatest risk.

Being in business myself, one thing many of us are mindfull of when considering expantion, is payroll tax and, PRT is 'chicken feed' in comparison to this one.

I just hope comon sense is adoppted here and the potential mess this could cause is identerfied.

Given the amount of 'substantiated objections' Krudd received over his plans to take a trophy to compenhagen and, considering this all fell on deaf ears, I doubt somehow this guy would ever admit to being wrong and see the tax for what it is.

A JOKE!

How many times can you say "Massive"?
Can the ex shadow treasurer tells what offshore petroleum or Gas projects have not happened because of the Supper Tax that these projects incur? Which btw is twice as much as what we are talking about here.

Trickledown economics doesn't work even the Yanks have turned their back on it.

Julie we can only dig this stuff up once.

*The nations that possess the resources have the upper hand and the companies just have to dance to that tune as the world's quality resources decline.*

Michael, that is exactly where people like yourself are mistaken,
as you don't understand the fundamentals of investment and risk.

A company like BHP does not have to do anything. Rather then
plough most of their profits, back into new projects, they could
simply keep their present mines ticking over and pay out profits
to shareholders. The shareholders would not complain!

If the potential net profits are not worth the risk, why bother
taking the risk in the firstplace? Best to park that money in
the money market, with no risk.

The ones set to benefit most from the change of rules are in
fact the Chinese. For they will be able to buy into resource
projects relatively cheaply, use a bit of good old Chinese
accounting and transfer price their profits clean out of the hands
of the Australian authorities. The average Australian will get
shafted all the way and they won't know a thing about it.

But as always, people learn the hard way.

After having spent his way into a hole, Kevin Rudd and Labor need money to get out. He fears increasing income taxes because that is a big vote loser, same for increasing the GST, so why not use the "class warfare rhetoric", as Julie Bishop correctly describes it, to tax the wealthy miners? Unfortunately for Mr Rudd,people are now too smart to fall for that one. They realise mining makes Australians more not less wealthy.

So Kevin is basically stuffed. He can't back down now because he will look gutless and he can't tax the miners because its unpopular and will lead to other problems.

Maybe he will have a sudden "health issue", probably a dicky heart, and slip out the back door.

Julie Bishop <This economic thinking runs counter to everything that made Australia rich over the last three decades, namely the embrace of competition and capitalism which rewards high risk with high returns>

Uncontrolled Capitalism also sent the banks broke recently, As for competition, I don’t think Woolworths and Coles have very much competition that’s why groceries never stop going higher in price.

Don’t get me wrong I believe in private enterprise and Capitalism as long as there is an authority that can step in and reign in some of the excesses of Capitalism when it is in the interests of Demos. Demos as in Democratic, meaning for the people. That is all the people not just the Jetset millionaires like the mining magnates

The call to "add value" to the resources is economically naive. Most of these industries have closed down as China and India can do it for a fraction of the cost. The only way to make this viable is to pay the employees a fraction of what they earn now. As there very little unemployment, I don't see many of our youth gravitating towards sweat shops.

The miners are not afraid that other countries will follow suit, in fact Canada is now offering sweeteners to Rio and BHP, and as they are international companies they can switch focus overnight. The same goes for South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, etc.

Having the highest tax rate on mining in the world should ring alarm bells in anyone with an IQ greater than a squirrel, but Rudd thinks its is about right?

Rudd should have hit the fossil fuel miners specifically with a carbon tax at the minehead. But a carbon tax should be part of a package that both makes fossil fuels increasingly prohibitively expensive in order to reduce their extraction whilst encouraging investment in low emissions energy technologies. This Resource Rent Tax isn't aimed at causing any reductions in anything, just to maximise the return to the owners of these mineral resources; it will just add to the dependence on their revenues and our gov'ts desire to increase extraction rates.
Julie, I can't imagine you could come up with any policy that actually results in reduced fossil fuel extraction (and reduced global emissions) and you belong to a party that's made it clear it wants to make the great challenge of climate change go away by the power of disbelief. Your party's undying support for the big vested interests who refuse to acknowledge the costs and consequences of failing to deal with GHG emissions is why you are dinosaurs, headed for the vilified villains section of future history. Any party that dismisses and ignores the best scientific advice at it's disposal and prefers to take their 'science' from the losers and liars of climate science reveals itself unfit to govern. Until your lot can turn away from your delusion of disbelief and put Australia's and the world's future ahead of the wealth of your wealthy mates you shouldn't be in parliament even as opposition members. Don't take it too personally; apart from the rhetoric I don't see Labor is any better - with no more intention than LibNats to plan for the future essential shutdown of the fossil fuel industry.

"Adding value" locally to unprocessed raw materials is a good idea but not always permitted by powerful stakeholders.

The final nail in Whitlam's political coffin was when he proposed to process uranium yellowcake on-shore and got USA interests offside.

Even BHP decided that local steelmaking was something that was no longer profitable enough and had no hesitation in acting in its own interests.

Shadow Minister: << The call to "add value" to the resources is economically naive. >>

I'm no economist, but I'd like to know what the apologists for the rampant mining industry propose as the basis for Australia's economy once we've sold off all of our mineral resources to the lowest bidders. It seems to me that our economy is very similar in this respect to places like Nauru, which enjoyed a brief period of wealth but is struggling to support its population now that all the superphosphate has been mined.

Currently we have coal mining companies destroying prime agricultural land in places like the Liverpool Plains and Darling Downs. Maybe if a resource rent tax slows them down a bit, that will ultimately prove to be a good thing, IMHO.

To all here who applauded the "redistribution of wealth" driven by the mining sector.
Where was this legislation two weeks ago, one month ago, two years ago...absolutely nowhere, not in sight or on the horizon? Where will the revenue go? It will pay the interest on the tens of billions borrowed and wasted by Labor. Why did Labor not bring in the mining tax to exclusively pay for the national health scheme, another failure I may add? The answer is that paying back the debt and covering their ass is more important than the people’s hospital and health care system, and that goes for both sides of politics.

Those here who embrace it as being our right because the resource is ours by birth or citizenship need a reality check. When you are born the government does not give you land and a house, at that point you own nothing except yourself. Everything that comes after your birth is purchased in some way or another including the dirt below our feet.

What we own collectively as a nation in pragmatic terms is not the soil, but the right to legislate guidelines as to how business is to be conducted on that soil.

I am not against a review of tax versus net profits in the exhaustible natural resources segment, but unlike Labor I considered it for many years. The mining sector sustained us during the global downturn. I experienced Europe and the States in 2009, and if their fiscal pain rated ten ours rated two, and it was not because of anything we made, but what we dug up. We are not out of the fire yet and hammering the resource segment right now is simply not common sense governance.

CJ Morgan: <<It seems to me that our economy is very similar in this respect to places like Nauru, which enjoyed a brief period of wealth but is struggling to support its population now that all the superphosphate has been mined.>>

We tend to react to the effect rather than the cause. The reason our economy is based on the same drivers as Nauru is that our sovereign right to protect our local manufacturers went out the window with the signing of U.N. protocols and the free trade agreements that flowed from them. The first world has been vanquished and we are left to sell our goods and chattels to survive, and as you said they run out eventually.

Dear Julie, Your title “Ground control to Major Rudd..” implies some sort of communication between planet Rudd and the rest of the known universe. I don’t think our PM communicates with anyone on anything. He is in “output mode” only.

There seems to have been little consultation with those most affected, and that includes working Australians who will face cost increases across the board.

What is more concerning to me is the apparent “thrashing” of our PM. It seems that the “grabbing and yanking” of any and every key economic lever is accompanied by populist rhetoric as justification. Every policy announcement sets one section of our society against another, this is getting very ugly.

The mining tax is being “sold” to Australians on ideological grounds and no cost / benefit analysis has been presented, as has been the case with similar and very costly initiatives.

Big policy initiatives need big thinking and analysis because “unintended consequences” of rushed policy can be disastrous, we have already seen enough disastrous consequences with other ALP “rushed initiatives” as evidence.

The rights or wrongs of the mining tax are less of an issue at this stage, because we simply do not know, it has not been explained. What is critical is that all sectors and sections of the Australian community are entitled to fully understand the benefits and the consequences. It is increasingly unacceptable and confusing to many Australians to have major policies literally thrown at the public.

We recently debated the “Health Reform” package here on OLO. We are a pretty determined bunch with talented investigative skills. Astonishingly, no one could explain how the health reform could possibly deliver the stated outcomes.

Now we being asked to support yet another dramatic policy announcement without the economic backing, just ideological rhetoric. To many it seems like a grab to replace CPRS revenue to retire the national debt recklessly incurred on more ideological rhetoric.

The same applies to the mining tax. This ideological warfare is madness and no way to run our nation. It is ugly and divisive

Drag Queen,Julia Bishop's latest harangue belies her Politician's duplicity. She well knows, this 40% Super Tax on the Mining Industry is just another KFC ( Kevin's Financial Crisis ) loopy charade. Despite all the crocodile tears, hand wringing, and dire predictions from Rio Tinto, BHP, Fortesque etc, it is highly unlikely the RSTP will be implemented by July 2012. It will have to pass the Senate first. Both Parties are muddying the waters for Political short term gain.

Out of Henry's 138 proposals to overhaul the cumbersome archaic tax system, only three recommendations have tentatively been accepted. Much ado about nothing.

Looking for ideas ? " Tax the Productive part of our Economy to support the unproductive parts - like our burgeoning, run-riot bureaucratic Public servants, and bloated Govt workers ".

Zeitgeist Treasurer Swan: " these are Resources of the Aust people. This super tax reflects the value of the mineral resources that are owned by the Australian people. This Tax will replace the Royalty regime, which has not given Aussies, their fair value over decades ".

Why has it taken this long to highlight this glaring imposition ? Queensland Labor Anna Bligh was spitting chips, as was WA Premier Colin Barnett.
All State's derive ten's of millions from Royalties, pay-roll tax, superannuation Funds, GST etc which is the mainstay of their respective revenue based economies. Ironically, Swan/Rudd are Queenslanders.
Evidently, his double-speak was not lost among the Labor States, which are visibly incensed.
Alternatively, does it mean we cease trading with China, India, Japan, Korea etc ?. Not a hope in Hell.

Meant to alienate the public into thinking he is a modern day Robin Hood - robbing the rich to feed the poor ! Even though ( in the same breath )he promises to cut the higher income earners i.e Corporate Heads, Parliamentarians, Govt Bureaucrats etc. He may well rue the day for his skewed rationale and chicanery.

Fact is, it's not a normal Tax on super profits, but a super tax on normal profits. There's a vast difference. At 55 % of earnings, it will be
cont..

the highest tax levied anywhere in the World. The reality, if implemented, will cost jobs; slow Economic growth; force projects Overseas; discourage Foreign investment / debt; Banks and Business will move offshore. The livelihood of thousands in Mt Isa, Roxby Downs, Pilbara, Rum Jungle etc destroyed. Whole populations in Mining townships will suddenly cease to exist. More people will join the dole queues. Mugwump Rudd's nemesis, will cost him the Election. The likely aftermath will be mind-boggling !

Kevin's spurious ambitious Plan C, is to retire Oz debt by 2018-19.

All along, politicians of all persuasions have stressed the gravity of his spendthrift extravagance and profligacy; how it will ultimately impact on future generations of Oz kids, left with nonredeemable debt. His GFC stimulus, was nothing short of manipulative aggrandizement. Meant to create mickey-mouse jobs, it fashioned more despair then it was worth. Houses burnt to the ground. Lives lost. Traders saddled with imported insulation bats nobody wanted. Garrett was the fall guy. He lost his cushy Ministerial posit.

Next, his ETS scheme floundered in Copenhagen. Wong was booed and discredited. Flannery, mocked, and the scientific world lampooned as fraudulent and opportunistic. His initial plans shelved for another decade. What became of all the ETS ( Govt) Agencies evangelizing climate change and Global warming ??

Rudd's tarradiddle Health and Hospital Agenda is headed for the same route. If competent State Health Services can't keep up the demand for beds in an aging population, what hope is there for the elderly, when his methodology is modeled after Britain's NHS - which is accident prone, and bears a history of mismanagement and total ineptitude.

The monetary cost, envisaged from reclaiming the GST component from the States, is another recipe for inexorable cupidity. Kevin bribed the States with a fistful of Dollars to accept his plan. A Pyrrhic victory at best. Without the GST receipts, which is dwindling because of consumer confidence and demand, every State absolutely depend on this component for survival. Most State Treasury's are operating on deficits and borrowings. Moody's has downgraded credit ratings on most. Tentatively, the cupboards
cont..

are bare. Little wonder ?
Effusive Julia Bishop is NOT being entirely honest with the Electorate. Most of her colleagues have benefited from bonus issue shares from the Miners. ( Members Pecuniary Interest ) A cusory study of the AEC reveal billionaire Clive Palmer donated $ 280,000 to the Lib-Nat Party in Qld. Energy and Minerals, British Tobacco, and Philip Morris alone donated $ 174,930.
She steadfastly, vehemently states in her preamble : " Mining Corporations should not expect any concessions ". Tongue-in-cheek-no-doubt.

In Washington. DC. President Obama decried 17,000 full time Lobbyist sharing the Rotunda. Many are ex Congressmen, Military echelon, and influential media moguls. They wield enormous clout and decision making on Capitol Hill. Following in America's footsteps, and inspired by the mythical American Dream, we too possess our legions of lobbyist who bestow infinite gifts, lucre and emoluments to push their " vested-interest " barrow. With this in mind, to what extent are Politician's held accountable for ?

" A Lobbyist is a person that is supposed to help Politicians make up their mind. Not only to help him, but pay him ". Will Rogers ( 1949)

CJ, "I'm no economist"

No kidding

First stage beneficiation is heavily labour dependent, and in this Australia can never compete with the likes of China. Second stage, niche market, and high value add is where Australia and other OECD countries can compete.

Secondly there has only been a fraction of Aus prospected. It is unlikely that the availability of minerals will end in the next few centuries.

How did "dalma" get to post three times in less than two hours?

Stephen Long on ABC TV last night thought that the miners were on a complete beat-up about the new tax. Remember that the tax is only on profits once the 6% threshold has been breached. Do miners actually make investment decisions based on assumptions of short term and unpredictable "super profits"? Somehow I don't think so.

Micheal, given that inflation runs at around 3-4%, if you invested
your money in a bank deposit, 7% would hardly be a "superprofit"

Profit has to be related to risk taken. The petroleum tax considers
14% a super profit IIRC. Business generally works on 15%, or its
not worth taking the risk on a new venture, things could go wrong
as they often do in mining.

Miners rely on commodity markets, which have massive fluctuations.
So they rely on the good times, to create padding for the lean times.
They try to finance new projects from profits, not from borrowings
if possible.

Net profit matters here, not gross profit. The thing is, Rudd and
his mob are not just content with company tax, they want this new
tax on top. That makes Australian miners some of the highest
taxed in the world.

I certainly hope that the miners won't invest further in Australia,
let them rather pay out profits to shareholders or invest elsewhere.

Or hire great acccountants and transfer price profits out of
Australia. The incentive to use every accounting trick in the book,
has just doubled

The mineral wealth belongs to this country despite the thinking of some here that we own nothing and the people are not the country but beholden to it. To call this tax wealth redistribution is extreme ignorance. Wealth redistribution is what has happened in Zimbabwe and is being touted in South Africa. It is as extreme as the idea that markets and business should be allowed to developed uncontrolled and without regulation as some here seem to suggest. As the GFC has shown us big business cannot be trusted with a packet of life savers. More still their champions will blame the government for their own greed and uncontrollable appetite for profits without conscience.
The super tax maybe poorly applied and could do with some modification, but i didn't notice that the current budget hinged on it only the programs of business tax reform, super reform and infrastructure programs. These would have to be shelved like the ETS if the arrogant opposition continue to block everything in the senate. They have no and never have had a mandate to block all this legislation. The nation voted for it in 07(ok not the super tax) and has paid a great price for the arrogance of an opposition that never accepted the election loss. There destructive behaviour in opposition will haunt them for a long time, negative politics is negative for the country.
Sooner or later the ETS will also come again when there is no longer an option to ignore the environmental destruction that has been laid upon this country by uncontrolled greed and drive for profit. The damage repair bill will have to be funded from somewhere and as we can see by the gulf oil spill it won't be the polluters that will pay if they can help it.
The GFC has bought a change to the landscape and it is disappointing that many don't understand it. It maybe a pity as it squeezes the ideal free market model but it's the very model that requires a conscience to work properly.

Shadow Minister: << there has only been a fraction of Aus prospected. It is unlikely that the availability of minerals will end in the next few centuries >>

Perhaps not all minerals - but do tell why it is now apparently necessary for coal miners to wreck our most productive food-producing country. Anything that slows down that rape and pillage campaign has to be good.

<< Second stage, niche market, and high value add is where Australia and other OECD countries can compete. >>

And when do you suggest that Australia enters that stage? Before we've sold all accessible minerals and buggered the country completely?

*The mineral wealth belongs to this country despite the thinking of some here that we own nothing*

It was pointed out to you Nairbe, that minerals belong to the States.
This present grab for money by the Commonwealth is nothing more
then a control freak Fed Govt, wanting to control everything.
For WA, the best thing right now would be to secede, rather then
just be treated as a cash cow by you greedy lot.

*Wealth redistribution is what has happened in Zimbabwe*

Nope, that was wealth destruction. That country is stuffed.
The goose was slaughtered by greedy bureaucrats and politicians.

Fact is, you and others live the cushy lifestyle that you do,
because of the mining industry. Without it, you would be wearing
banana leaves in your banana republic

"Fact is, you and others live the cushy lifestyle that you do,
because of the mining industry. Without it, you would be wearing
banana leaves in your banana republic."

Ho hum - Newish Australians have no concept of Australia's mining history where I've been smack bang in the middle of many protracted mining busts and I've never had to resort to wearing banana leaves. Hmmmm....the idea sounds rather attractive.

I hear tell there's a new regulation pending in Zimbabwe (when the bun fight ceases) where all businesses and mines over the value of $500,000 (?) must be 51% owned by the people so will we have Rio Zim, Rio Tinto Australia or both? I predict there will be other developing countries too taking control of their resources which have been plundered by our big 'Australians.'

But do try to be philosophical about your mining buddies Julie. The grave yards are full of indispenable people.

Yabby
I grew up in QLD and lived in WA for 8 Years. The whole sucede thing is really boring. We are one country and the states are becoming more and more irrelevant as the economy continues to expand internationally. Nationhood would destroy WA, just start considering the costs involved and the incredibly restricted tax base that you would have to work from. It wouldn't take long and the place would be in big trouble when the mining boom stops. I do enjoy hearing the old stories though. Joh always wanted to split off with WA and NT. Could have been good but deeply short sighted. Nothing ever lasts and WA will again need the rest of the country before too long, then all we will hear is how we owe you because you all carried use for so many years.
Never said what happened in Zimbabwe was good just that it was wealth distribution. This tax though poorly thought out as is this governments way is common sense, and you do realise that mining does happen in other states around this country.

*I've never had to resort to wearing banana leaves. Hmmmm....the idea sounds rather attractive.*

Dickie dear, sounds like you need to get out your Che Guevara hat,
to match the banana leaves :)

I dunno so much about Zimbabwe giving anything to the people. They
gave the farms to their mates, now the people are starving. They
are taking money from the Chinese and are ready to hand them
their minerals. The Chinese don't muck around, they will strip
the place bare and again the locals will starve.

Nairbe, WA is doing 60% of the minerals with 10% of the population.
Yet if we look at what comes back this way, we are basically
a cashcow for the East. Rest assured, we would do pretty well
without you lol. I would vote for secession tomorrow, if the
opportunity should arise.

CJ

"Second stage, niche market, and high value add is where Australia and other OECD countries can compete.---And when do you suggest that Australia enters that stage?"

There already. The industries that try to compete head on with China have long since closed. Those remaining either fill niche markets or have logistic barriers to trade (such as transport costs) that keep them competitive.

If they want to mine here in Australia! They pay the Tax! And if they don't, someone else will! I think it's a good tax. And I'm not a labour supporter. Don't let their scaremongering put off a good Tax! It's not like these greed driven arrogant capitalists are on the bones of their ass! Up the share holders! The hole community is more important then a hand full of greedy capitalist pigs! End of story.

Attractive now for China. They are not interested in profit only the ores. So we have given them a lovely discount for our resources already and the tax not even law yet. We are treated like all other countries now as been have been down rated and are seen as having soveriegn risk. We have lost the point of difference.

If we want to ban mining to save it for the future that has nothing to do with this tax, how would it make an ounce of difference? We discount it for foreign ownership who will operate at a loss or break even now as they do nto see k profit from ming but from steel making. The profit will move to China. They probably cannot believe their luck as we trash our own economy and makes oursleves ripe for takeover.If we try to stop them they will impose a import tax.

Ores are only worth under $8 a tonne in the ground. We probably make more than that in royalties. This was one real stupid move by Rudd. A nation in debt has obligation to reduce that debt. Now debt will cost us more and interest rates will increase due to higher risk profile. Rudd has killed the economy. Even if he repealed today damage is done to a degree as we are seen to have an irresponisble and unstable government.