Rudd is at fault.

If we were a healthy democracy not only would this tax been open to the checks and balances of the opposition, but also public debate and consultation with the miners before it was announced as a finsihed product that was not negotiable.

This talk that the poor have no voice is a load of hogwash as well.

The tax cuts for the big banks are being paid for by this tax. Poor, do not lie. Infrastructure promises which would be the only return to the people so to speak is very small amount and could be paid for from natural increases in government revenue from mining sector.

So the poor will not benefit. The main rationale behind the tax is to reduce corporate tax (read corporate, not business)as a measure to stimulate foreign investment in the non mining sector and make it more competitive internationally in attracting such investment.

Also to cover up gross and negligent over spending.

Small business gets a write off allowance up to $5,000 on capital expenditure.

Poor get some compensation to super because the 15% flat tax was wrongly applied to those that did not earn a taxable income. That is very minor though and more a correction to past error than a redistribution of the rspt.

So why the poor need a voice against the miners? The miners are greedy and self serving but efficient private sector investment would do more good for the poor than government giving away tax cuts to rich banks.

Also if Rudd had been democratic the public would have been able to debate how the RSPT is spent. Most nations use a future fund known as sovereign wealth fund. The government is not allowed access to this money because it belongs to the people. So he using that language but not actually providing for the people, rather for government vote buying as we see already in many examples.

So the lack of democracy is due to the dicatorial culture Rudd has built and the miners response because of that.

Power and money can be overcome with common sense and you do not need to have power and money to have that

This morning Anthony Albanezi was asked about the consultation process for the mining tax.

In the course of that interview, the issue of 'CLIMATE CHANGE' came up..and in that..he said he did NOT agree with a 'Carbon Tax' but wanted a 'private trading' based solution...

WOOOOO...... hmmmm *scratches head*...... *more scratching*.....

Oh..wait.. Let's look up who might be a "Commercial Carbon Trader" in Sydney! yep.. click click.......scroll scroll...

aaah THERE it is. "ENVEX"... oh.. looks interesting..
Yep..they do it all..and are affiliated with that model of honesty and purity the..CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE...

Let's see who is the BOSS of ENVEX....

Well looky there..it's... it's..BOB CARR ! ex Labour Premier of NSW.

Ah Hah! the *Labour Connection*.....

of course there could be no link whatsoever between Albanesi's position and this blatant connection....

Power and Money are flowing in many directions and not only in regard to the mining tax.
Mining Tax= Income Re-distrubution. "From each..according to his ability..to each according to his need."

Now..where have I read that before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

The author mentions the money the previous government spent on advertising work choices (a policy which was not put to the electorate and which many would agree contributed to the demise of that government). It occurs to me that the union movement spend considerable amounts of money opposing that government policy.

R0bert

The difference is the union movement is made up of Australian citizens exercising their democratic right to organise and bargain collectively.

These miners are largely multi-national corporations who expatriate the vast bulk of their profits earned on exploiting a publicly owned and finite resource.

The government, on behalf of the Australian people, is seeking a greater share of those super profits to ensure a more balanced economy and to avoid Australia succumbing to "Dutch Disease" - where a booming resource sector sucks capital and labour from elsewhere and raises interest rates and the currency to punitive levels.

I totally agree with the writers that while the mining industry is perfectly entitled to argue its case, many of their claims are hysterical and self-serving. That they might influence the election outcome is extremely disturbing.

Mr Denmore
Dr Ken Henry discounted comprehensively any notion we have or will ever get Dutch Disease. Our economy is well balanced with mining only 7% GDP. This is the reason he gave for not using the tax to be paid to a sovereign wealth fund. That plus we do not have finite resources like Norway clearly does....meaning ours will outlast more than few generations.

One good reason this tax should be dumped is that nobdoy seems to understand it.!

I see greedy city folk once again stealing from regional Australia. For example the big bank does not have to build railways, roads, electrical generators to do business. Miners do. Because this they get rebates, makes sense to me. But now they are called greedy because they get these rebates? It is only because the greedy self centred south east want all the roads, all the railways, all the shipping. They DEMAND regional Australian gets nothing but DEMAND they give everything.

The in ground value of minerals is very low because it requires massive amount of capital. years of hard work to start mining it. What have you contributed to this Mr Denmore?, are you not the one that is greedy now wanting to profit from the labour and investment of others?

Some mines would owe us but many owe us nothing. Not as simplistic and nonsensical as hysterical greedy miners stealing our resources rant, that is so ignorant I am not even sure why I reply.

Meanwhile regional Australia starts to hurt already but the greedy city folk do not care as long as they can sell their house for 20 times more than they paid for it.

Mining giant crushes Dawson spirit
http://www.centraltelegraph.com.au/story/2010/06/11/mining-giant-crushes-town-spirit-future-unclear-af/

Who is NOT greedy, pray tell!

The Missus, spare me the bleeding heart 'woe is regional Australia' story. The resources belong to the entire nation, not to any particular group.

Your memory may be failing you, but every single substanial legislative change we have made in this country - indeed in any country - triggers self-serving, hysterical and irrational whinging of rent-seekers.

We saw it with the gold tax, with Mabo, with the GST (a great Howard reform by the way). Vested interests will always fight reform and try and disguise their own interests as the national interest.

The current well-funded propaganda campaign being fought by the mining industry (in coalition with the Murdoch media) is just such an example.

The fact is the sky will not fall in. Miners will still make significant profits. Workers will still be employed. The resources are not going away. And if these companies don't mine them, someone else will.

Thank you for putting forward a rational point of view somewhere in the public domain. I am quite baffled by any ordinary person who might think that Gina Rinehardt or Clive Palmer could have any conceivable interest in their welfare. Incidentally the hysterical attacks on Kevin Rudd in the media, and here, of late have little hard basis of fact with the possible exception of the emission trading scheme but even here he was faced with an intransigent opposition and a massive misinformation campaign which has virtually destroyed public support for the notion of climate change.

This topic is largely a no win one, now that the ideologically (fearful) vindictive have been called to erect the barricades against reasoned thought.

The politically myopic see an opportunity for more mindless partisanship with the sole objective of *political* advantage regardless of national interest i.e. a good candidate to scare the population into polarisation.

I ask, what is it that the argument actually over?
Answer: A yet to be defined, Tax. (there are still defining imponderables and vagaries).

The second issue is the WAY it's being handled....heaven forbid, shock horror, that it may have been introduced to gain some political Kudos or negotiating from the strongest position.
The first should be expected the latter mandatory.

In short what we are witnessing is *a NEGOTIATION*
Granted The Labor Government went in Boots and all, that maybe argued as over the top.

However, what is commonly ignored is that both parties are running multiple objectives.
The labor party as a secondary aim is trying to show Leadership/management (to be re-elected).

The mining companies are well aware that if this tax goes through other countries will follow.

Human nature is that we or our organizations are never happy with status quo indefinitely. *Status quo is temporary*. Show me any corporation, union, person who doesn't want more. Our entire society is based on aspiration.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch (country) we have so many wantonly ignorant all with *absurdly definitive* opinions all willing to yell dissent. Based on what ? Certainly not reason or all the facts. And arguably not in the objective benefit of the country.

The author is correct in that Corporations by definition want more, Profit, power to control that profit.

Political parties seem to be all about power.
My question who is unreservedly looking after the people/country.
IMO neither really but we voted for the government not the corporations....BTW the latter doesn't have voting rights, they aren't human and don't have intrinsically, our interests at heart.

An excellent little article - succinct and to the point.

Mr Denmore: << ...every single substanial legislative change we have made in this country - indeed in any country - triggers self-serving, hysterical and irrational whinging of rent-seekers.

We saw it with the gold tax, with Mabo, with the GST... >>

Quite so. This is just another extremely well-funded propaganda campaign by the rapacious mining lobby, aided and abetted by sympathisers in the MSM and the Opposition.

One of the most ridiculous things I've seen lately is a pic of billionaire Gina Rinehart bleating about the proposed tax from the back of a truck.

Gorufus, I am quiet baffled that anyone, even a hard left supporter, could ever think that Rudd could have any conceivable interest in their welfare.

After all, he has been doing his damndest to prove otherwise ever since he was elected.

Granted, Gina, & Clive are unlikely to be too worried about my welfare, but at least they are not trying to use me to promote their own interests the way our KRuddy is, they just want to dig a few ditches.

Still, unlike Ruddy, they have never done too much to harm me either.

Gavin Mooney and Colin Penter seem to mindlessly echo the Labor party line, not even pretending to view both sides of the issue in spite of the obvious hypocrisy.

Labor never got a democratic mandate from the voters to pillage the mining sector and everyone's super funds. Even before Labor announced the Super Tax, they had planned to break their election promise on political advertising to sell the tax. The democratic process is being thwarted more by continuous breaking of election promises by Labor, and by Labor's complete lack of consultation than by the miners.

The tax level on mining in Aus was always higher than average, and the new super tax will boost it to the highest in the world. This will have a serious impact on the share holders, retirement funds, and construction industry. The directors would be derelict in their duties if they simply allowed KRudd's spin to define the issue without the complete picture warts and all.

That they are having their say is actually part of the democratic process, if Kev was simply able to issue edicts, this would be autocracy.

As far as funding goes, the Labor party get millions from the unions to peddle their interests, and plenty of back handers from developers.

Reinventing democracy so that it can't by hijacked by money:
http://indymedia.org.au/2010/05/18/mammon-votes-for-abbott .

Mr denmore

quote
"" Your memory may be failing you, but every single substanial legislative change we have made in this country - indeed in any country - triggers self-serving, hysterical and irrational whinging of rent-seekers"

1....No I recall all these other reforms and they made sense. No comparison. Logic is absent here, not a static model at all as Henry implied as financiers do not accept it as is. Name one bank that is happy to fund the projects?

2...So what if people have argued tax before and the roof has not caved in. That debate is why the next time the government normally shows some measure of professionalism and transparancy. We are not subserviants in a dictatorship who kiss the feet of the dictator and obey all they request. Get serious ,it is a joke right. lol

3...self serving. No it is not self serving as the south east that plunder the regional areas, other nations and even the labor of nations of countries like India with cheap call centre staff.It is a colonial mindses that all the world's riches belong the white man.

*These miners are largely multi-national corporations*

Ah Mr Denmore, but those corporations are finally largely owned
by pensioners, as we can see with BP. Their suspension of dividends
will cost each British pensioner around 600 Pounds. Go through
the BHP registery, it is much the same. If you have super, you too
would be a part owner of BHP, even if ignorant of the fact.

*spare me the bleeding heart 'woe is regional Australia' story.*

Australia's regions create the wealth which you city slickers
shuffle around for a living. For you do little or nothing which
competes in the globalised world. But of course we have mob rule,
the mob live in the cities so can outvote deserving regional areas.
So you seemingly spend it as you wish and screw the regions.

*The resources belong to the entire nation*

Nope, the resources belong to the States, that is why they
are paid royalties. You are badly informed.

Judging by the article and posts, few actually understand the
long term ramifications or how the mining industry even operates.

Clearly the miners need to spend even more, to at least try and
educate the ignorant and they are clearly plentiful, as we can
see by Mr Denmore's and other posts.

There was no debate or consultation about the GST (the never ever GST).

Nor was there any debate about Workchoices. These were a done deal.

These were unpopular decisions made by the government of the time. I can't see how the Rudd government's mining super tax is different.

The Mabo decision was a court ruling, based on British Law.

I find it odd that the whingers about the mining tax are all in the mega wealthy bracket. These people are not elected, they were prepared to sack workers at the first sign of the GST, and I am sure they put their own desires before anyone else.

These mega-rich are putting on a good show of demanding that they, not the democratically elected government, run the county. These are the same kind of folk that backed workchoices.

Give us a break, Aka. The 1998 federal election was fought with the GST as THE main issue! If that's not a debate, what is?

Mr Denmore...

you said:

"The government, on behalf of the Australian people, is seeking a greater share of those super profits to ensure a more balanced economy"

On behalf of the AUSTRALIAN people ? ur kidding right ? :)

C'mon.. they are doing it on behalf of their own re-election campaign and those Australians who happen to support them politically.

BUT..it's also a recipe which the Libs will have to look at (not that they want to tell us)

UNFUNDED RETIREMENT LIABILITIES.. appears to be a big factor in all this.

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/StrategicPaper.aspx?doc=html/Publications/Papers/Retirement_Income_Strategic_Issues_Paper/Chapter_4.htm

Henry was appointed by Liberal Government so it's unlikely he is a Labour hack.

So..in summary.. this is:

1/ After selling off most of the available public assets.. looking around and asking "hmm..where IS the money source"?
2/ Plus a liberal (labour) dose of "How can we pick this inevitable challenge up and spin it so as to enhance our own reelection prospects"

Unfornately for Labour.. they are the incumbent... it seems the Coalition would need to do something like this also... but being in opposition..they can just hurl verbal rocks at it and make political gains :)

Power and money always thwart the so-called "democratic" process we are saddled with. The process was designed by the rich and powerful to ensure just that. The present argument between government and mining corporations is just a well publicized example of the sort of thing that goes on around us every day on a smaller scale, about numerous smaller issues.

What are we going to do about it?

I think it important to distinguish between a private body - such as the mining confederation or the ACTU - spending a lot of money on an advertising campaign, and such bodies lobbing in large amounts of cash to political parties in the hope of influencing their actions. The first may be seen as part of the democratic process, the second as subverting it.

One aspect of this new mining tax which hasn't been discussed is that the Feds are going into state government territory. Kevin Rudd claims that the royalty payments made to the states don't reflect the super profits of the mining boom. Well this may be correct but so what? Surely it should be the states that make this decision to raise the tax.
Technically the minerals belong to the states and there is no obligation for royalty payments from WA or QLD to be spent elsewhere. I see the mining tax as directly attacking the tax base of the states, particularly the mining states. Obviously mining revenue is advantageous to WA and QLD but that should not matter. The states should be free to compete with each other.

Gavin and Colin,

“Why have limits on government spending on selling public policy and not on corporations spending on opposing public policy?”
This is a false comparison. It is not that there should be a maximum limit on government advertising spending. As I’m sure most Australians would agree, there should just be NO government advocacy advertising when sponsored by the taxpayer. Why on earth should Liberal, National, Family First or Greens tax payers be expected to pay for Labor Party ads? And as the corporations use their own money, there is no comparison.

“the hypocrisy of the Opposition is breathtaking”
True but there are others who have a right to complain. The miners and just the public in general.

“…and the mining corporations who are not democratically elected seek to use their power and their money to thwart the democratic process”
Aw crap. All they’re doing is giving a political speech. They might have a bigger microphone but they have no power. Everyone still has their one vote to place it wherever their whim desires. Saying that is an insult to all those throughout the world who truly do suffer from non democratic government.

“That not only weakens democracy; it also breeds cynicism in the ordinary punter who sees the decay in her power and thinks “why bother?”"
If you’re truly interested in that then what about a true instance such as the recent South Australian election where Mike Rann retained government while getting FEWER votes than the Coalition opposition.

Edward Carson wrote:

"And as the corporations use their own money, there is no comparison."

If the advertisers (corporations or individuals) have been getting an unfair advantage, it's not their own money; it's an ill-gotten gain, which they spend so as to influence policy so as to get more ill-gotten gains.

"They might have a bigger microphone but they have no power."

If they have a bigger microphone, they have more power -- power to influence public opinion, which in a "democracy" is the ultimate power.

"Everyone still has their one vote to place it wherever their whim desires."

They vote according to their opinions. And their opinions are largely determined by what they do and don't hear. And what they do and don't hear is largely determined by money.

I have offered a solution above. I offer it again:
http://indymedia.org.au/2010/05/18/mammon-votes-for-abbott .

STATES RIGHTS....

Wattle says:

"Surely it should be the states that make this decision to raise the tax."

Indeed.. but the point of the topic is about how power and money 'THWART' the democratic process.

Who imagines a political party who is the recipient of HUGE political donations..will bite the hand which feeds it's re-election ambitions, for the sake of 'the people' ?

C'mon Wattle.. come into the real world :)

*power to influence public opinion, which in a "democracy" is the ultimate power.*

That ultimate power as you call it, is really in the hands of the
PM and treasurer right now, for they have virtually unlimited access
to the press and appear on TV nearly every day, rolling out their
spin.

Greed for political power, as our pollies do it, can be extremely
damaging and self serving.

Right now we have a problem, in that Swann and Rudd are playing
politics, the miners are doing arithmetic and pointing out that
the figures don't add up.

Swan is simply distorting the figures, to suit his agenda. He's
now claiming that out of the increase in coal prices, companies
are only paying 10% and keeping the rest. That is simply not
correct. 10% is royalties to Qld. Another 30% goes to the Federal
Govt in the form of company tax, so Govts end with 40%. Now
they want closer to 60%. Its not unreasonable for miners to
point that out, when our pollies so distort the figures.

While the world mourns the willful destruction of the Gulf of Mexico and ponders the unknown ecological consequences, the environmental carnage and/or human rights’ abuses, committed by Australia’s hit and run miners, here and in faraway lands can no longer be concealed – Ghana, Peru, Indonesia, Philippines, Guatemala, Papua New Guinea, Romania, Nigeria, Argentina, South Africa etc etc.

Class actions and allegations of bribery, injuries, genocide, murders, community displacements, environmental destruction of lands and rivers, chemical poisonings etc abound while Australia’s merchants of greed pay their mining directors multi-millions of dollars annually whilst threatening to sack our workers.

Author and SMH finance journalist, James Kirby wrote:

‘Unless you have someone enforcing the law, the bad guys go about their business undeterred. In effect, it means that if you have a brown paper bag of unmarked bills under a full moon on the beach at Far Away Island you don't really have to worry about the ''Australian'' regulator. As for the local regulator … they might just be coming down the beach to meet you.

‘But you won't find Australian regulators doing anything here. The Rio scandal was uncovered by officials in China. The BHP case was started by America's powerful Securities and Exchange Commission.’

There’s always been something rotten in the state of down under whose mining barons pillage, plunder and pollute with impunity. Now they circle like buzzards, licking their chops - arrogantly confident that the current government will stagger into oblivion.

*While the world mourns the willful destruction of the Gulf of Mexico*

Ah the melodrama. So they did it deliberately? Tell me who did?
Bad judgement yes, mistakes made yes, but hardly willful.

The author writes that among those who will benefit from the tax are
'various other groups who rely on public spending. ' Maybe at the next CopenHagen fiasco we can fly 1000 delegates instead of hundreds, we can give shonksers a pay rise for installing pink bats or employ even more public servants in Canberra which no doubt will benefit the pensioners (not). If the Government was slightly trustworthy in its expenditure they would have a little more support. The worse Government for spending on record enthuses no confidence even among many of its supporters.

Messrs Mooney & Penter rant against the mining companise advertising campaign and donating money to the Liberal Party but conveniently forget the massive amounts of money spent by the Union movement in advertisements & donations to the Labor party both State & Federally - all without any approval of their members!!

REF

This is a labor party political broadcast.

"Ah the melodrama. So they did it deliberately? Tell me who did?
Bad judgement yes, mistakes made yes, but hardly willful."

That’s the style Yabby – When one starts to look stoopid, squeal foul because despite the irrefutable, officially documented evidence in these matters, there will always be grovellers and avaricious sycophants who persist with the nonsense that gross negligence, environmental carnage and corporate greed is good for the economy.

The evidence of willful neglect (of which you deny) reveals that BP was charged with criminal violations at its Texas refinery and hit with a record $87.4 million fine last year.

In March this year, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration announced dozens more safety violations occurring at the BP-Husky refinery in Toledo, Ohio. In the most recent inspection, OSHA said it 'found 38 per-instance, willful violations including 26 instances of deficient pressure relief.'

BP previously pleaded guilty to a US Clean Water Act violation for a 2006 spill that released 212,252 gallons of oil on to the tundra, the largest recorded on Alaska’s North Slope.

In Australia, it took 200 years and the deaths of an estimated 3,000 NSW coal miners before a mining company (Xstrata) was successfully prosecuted for OHS breaches in NSW.

BHP Billiton's 2009 A/R reveals that the company managed to kill off seven of its workers for the year. Wow - not bad compared to 11 deaths in 2008 and 17 in 2004. All up, that's around 50 fatalities since 2004. But unlike Joe Citizen, it's business as usual, nobody goes to gaol and the fines are mere petty cash for the mining barons and the unethical shareholders rejoice on receipt of the blood money.

Well now it could be tough for the greed merchants because the gangrene has set in and the amputations are overdue. Screwing the taxpayer, plundering the resources, breaching all emissions' guidelines and freely bludging off the environment is no longer acceptable practice in an enlightened community.

Dickie dear, yes we know you have a chip on your shoulder about
mining companies, but you remain a hypocrite, demanding their
products, so that you can lead your cushy lifestyle.

*BHP Billiton's 2009 A/R reveals that the company managed to kill off seven of its workers for the year.*

Hang on, my nephew works for one of their contractors, on their
sites. According to him, they are totally pedantic about safety,
to the point of irritation. But then you clearly are unable to
examine these things objectively.

Fact is that mines are indeed dangerous places, many workers drink
too much, take drugs, despite the testing, make bad judgement
calls etc. But of course its easy to just wave your finger at those
"evil corporations".

People get killed driving cars every day, our hospitals make crucial
mistakes which kill people. Fact is, us humans are not as smart as
we sometimes think and we are certainly not infallible.

Yes, BP are being shown to have been the cowboy of the oil industry.
It could well bankrupt the company, fair enough. But nobody went
out to cause willfull damage, that is and remains the point.

The regulators had a duty to monitor and approve what BP were doing,
and were clearly not doing their job. For that you can thank a
politician, a Mr Bush, elected by the people!

‘The regulators had a duty to monitor and approve what BP were doing,
and were clearly not doing their job. For that you can thank a
politician, a Mr Bush, elected by the people!’

My but you do speak with forked tongue Cowboy and it is noted (constantly ) that you duckshove the criminal activities of your beloved ‘free’ marketeers onto the regulator that you and the other darlings of the tea party and certified right wing nut jobs, despise.

However, your side-step, soft shoe shuffle , is proof that the self-regulated mining industry cannot be trusted and will descend to unconscionable levels of depravity to make a fast buck by bludging off the environment and spilling the blood of the defenceless.

And similar to the mining industry in this country, the US’s coal ash industry, has for ten years, manipulated reports and publications about the dangers of coal combustion waste, by coercing the US EPA into allowing the multibillion-dollar coal ash industry to have virtually unfettered access to the EPA during the Bush administration. The coal industry was permitted to ghost write EPA's publications and official reports to dumb down the toxic effects of arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, dioxins, selenium and radionuclides in coal waste, which your industry also dumps on commercial crops in Australia. Very economical – yay Cowboy!

For the mining industry, which you defend, it’s "No rules, no regulations, just drill baby drill.” If that doesn’t work, there are always the dodgy ‘sustainability’ and emissions’ reports, lobbyists, bribes, threats, standover tactics and plenty of corporate and political whores to perform the media’s dirty work.

Alas, your Occupational Health and Safety ‘regulated’ feudal kingdom which continues to send workers to their deaths, blasts the crap out of communities, fouls whole towns, rivers, oceans and slaughters tens of millions of native animals annually with impunity is about to be handcuffed – one way or another. Kindly pass on that message to your obtuse leader Cowboy – the ‘honourable’ Premier Barnett aka Barney Rubble who has recently budgeted millions of dollars to subsidise a duplicitous and corrupt mining industry.

Deary me Dickie dear, your aging brain cells are showing, they
really are. Now we know that the brain works by association, but
we can also reason about things, if we are still able to. So
either you are being deceptive, stupid, or simply too old.

*For the mining industry, which you defend, it’s "No rules, no regulations, just drill baby drill.*

Nope, thats a famous would be politician, who happens to be female,
just like you. Should I conclude your guilt by association now?

*that you and the other darlings of the tea party and certified right wing nut jobs, despise.*

There we go. Despite my posts about the requirements for balance and
regulation, your attempt at guilt by association is either part
of your deceptive nature, or you are going downhill fast!

Fact is, that unlike you, I am not a hypocrite. I admit that we need
mining, if we decide to live lives beyond the loin cloth and spear
era. Last time I checked, it was affecting about 1% of our landmass.

I admit that we need investment in the mining industry, all the better
if its Australian investment, so that wealth stays here and helps
to pay your pension. We don't really want to be owned by the Chinese.

There are good and bad in every industry.

I don't practise guilt
by association as you do, but then I can still think about these
things at my age :)

If you really have a bone to pick with particular mining companies,
so buy 20 shares and go to their AGM. Tell them what you think.
You might even get a free cup of tea

"There was no debate or consultation about the GST (the never ever GST).

Nor was there any debate about Workchoices. These were a done deal."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10542#173481

My recollection is that the GST was part of the policy platform taken to an election.
Workchoices is viewed by many as being significant in the ousting of the Lib's from power.

"Never ever" is not so bad if voters get a chance to consider a politicians change of mind on an issue before voting, a whole different matter if a major contested change is brought in without that step. Voters tend to be less than unimpressed with politicians implementing major platform changes which were not part of a published policy at the previous election.

R0bert

Sheer jabberwanky Cowboy and total nonsense, the definition meaning a hissy fit of rambling ad hominen, which in your deluded mind, resembles a civilized language but in fact is meant only to obfuscate the evidence and confuse the jabberwanker's victims.

And zero response to my assertion that the recidivist criminal activities of the mining industry are the social, legal and corporate responsibility of the mining industry - not some state regulatory industry sycophant. For instance: Who should acknowledge responsibility for Joe Citizen's dangerous driving? Joe Citizen or the regulator?

And who has acknowledged responsibility for the criminal activities of Australia's mining industry in developing countries, several ruled by despotic governments and brutal militia? Certainly not our hit and run mining industry! Where is the Royal Commission?

http://saverapurapu.blogspot.com/2009/08/pure-lip-service-for-environmental_17.html

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/185136/judge-in-marcopper-case-gets-inaction-complaint

And who has paid to remediate the carnage offshore, including the Ok Tedi and Fly rivers in Papua New Guinea which an expert claims will take 300 years to self-remediate?

A 2007 bi-partisan parliamentary enquiry into a mining environmental and health catastrophe in WA revealed that "industry regulation is grossly inadequate and the Committee identified major failings in Departments of Environment regulatory function and shortcomings in other regulatory agencies and the irresponsible and unlawful conduct of industry."

"Balance and regulation" Cowboy? What about a Royal Commission?

So am I correct when I assume you want to reward the mining industry with exemptions from a carbon tax, a super profits tax and zero compensation for the thousands of victims of these shoddy operations where currently (and despite 'regulation') 250 Australian citizens have been forced offshore to commence a class action with allegations of illnesses including cancers, asthma, allergies, skin ailments and even mortalities caused with impunity by a rogue mining company over some 20 years.

This rogue miner cosily shares an office complex with the Department of Environment and Conservation and has "chairs" in many of our places of learning whilst trashing the environment!

Cowboy - Do me a favour and spare us from anymore of your defective, windbagging diatribe.

That's more your normal spirit dickie dear, a little late night
whiskey in the cuppa tea, seems to work wonders :)

*For instance: Who should acknowledge responsibility for Joe Citizen's dangerous driving? Joe Citizen or the regulator?*

Both bear responsibility. If there were no laws against theft,
rape or murder, or if they were not enforced, do you really
think that they would not increase dramatically? The
responsibility of lawmakers if to create and enforce laws,
under which we as a society can operate.

Human behaviour at all levels, is full of errors of judgement.
That is why we need checks and balances, but separation of the
powers, so that the errors of one source of power are balanced
out by checks and balances of another.

Take a look at our own banking industry, which sailed through
the GFC. Now analyse why. It was not clever Kevie. Go back
a bit and you might remember the HIH fiasco. Costello realised
that there was a problem and installed a new and very forceful
regulator, who enforced those checks and balances.

Now go to the BP fiasco. A regulator was indeed in place,
they approved BPs drilling plan for the hole, but that regulator
became corrupted under the Bush regime and it will take the
new regime some time to sort out the mess.

That regulator also has the expertise to make informed decisions
about these things. Other oil companies are pointing out that
mistakes were made in the design, but there were no checks and
balances in place. Disaster followed.

Checks and balances are indeed required at all levels, for we are
all human and none of us are infallible.

"Minerals Council chief executive Mitch Hooke said the industry did not like the structure of the proposed tax but there had to be a move away from royalties to a profits-based tax.

Twenty leading economists, including Professor Pannell, former Australian Competition and Consumer Commission boss Allan Fels, University of Melbourne economics chair John Freebairn and Queensland University school of economics head Flavio Menezes, signed a letter advocating the new tax.

They said the details were open to debate but the move from royalties to a rent tax made economic sense and should not affect mining investment."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7300000/experts-back-changes-to-mining-tax/

While the Rudd proposal needs much work and adjustment, Australia is entitled to a dividend from successful mining of non-renewable resources.

Deary me Severin, theoretical economists who seem to be mostly
labour party supporters and you believe every word.

Perhaps you should take a bit of notice what those actually doing
the investing are saying and how the numbers crunch out.

Would you pay 77% of your salary in tax?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-kevs-77-effective-tax-rate-20100617-yhw2.html

Luckily for the big boys like BHP, they don't need to be bullied
by 2 bob politicians, they have enough offshore projects to get on
with, until a more sensible Govt is elected and the rules are
changed.

There is a difference between paying tax and fiscal thuggery. If
you think that you don't already benefit from the 6.3 billion $
tax paid by BHP alone, then you understand even less then I thought.

But learn the hard way.