BTW, on the subject of super, I'll bet that there are literally tens of thousands of women who have more super than millions of men. I'll bet there are millions of women in Australia who have more super than me, because I've got bugger all.

While you're busy handing out other people's money, how about a few bucketsful this way?

re: Mining

Firstly: Mining enterprises should pay more than other companies as they are extracting a non-renewable resource that belongs to the Australian people.

But in any case, they are already making enormous profits...

see:

http://www.actu.org.au/Media/Mediareleases/Heresthetruthonminingprofitshavegrownbymorethaneighttimeswages.aspx

"The Australian mining sector has been Australia’s most profitable industry over the past five years, earning a total of $204 billion in pre-tax profits since 2004-5 (ABS catalogue 8155.0). Yet less than 10% of the total income earned from mining has been paid in wages and salaries to its workforce."

Meanwhile "overseas interests own about 83 per cent of Australia's mining industry, and that about $50 billion will leave the country over the next five years in dividends." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-29/mixed-reaction-to-greens-mining-profits-report/2776784

It begs the question why we don't just have more public investment in mining...

Antiseptic:

Women are discriminated with superannuation as they are more likely to have an interrputed work cycle, or to work part time because of 'home duties'.

The answer is a stronger Aged Pension and more generous means tests.

Some men will be affecte by this also.

But if women (and men) in this situation are contributing to society through social reproduction (raising children/domestic work) surely that are entitled to financial security in retirement. And single parents especially need support for longer - as a matter of the interests of the children concerned if nothing else. Just because some work occurs outside of the labour market does not mean it is unimportant; that it ought not be recognised.

Tristan, the miners already do pay far more taxes, then other
companies. Only some of those are paid to the States, as the
States actually own the minerals, not the Commonwealth.

Wages paid may well seem low, when analysing the figures, because in
today's mining industry, a great deal of their work is contracted
out to the mining services industry, which employs a great many
people. Plenty of miners don't even own the bulldozers etc, its
all contract work.

In the last 5 years, some miners have indeed done very well. Had
the China story not created such demand, our resource prices,
miners and our economy, could well be on the ropes. We are now
benefitting from billion $ investments made by the mining industry,
10-30 years ago. Just as we will benefit from the profits which
they are now reinvesting in new projects, in another 10-30 years.

On the last point, you are correct. But public investment can also
be investment by the public in mining, which is likely to be far
more profitable then the 20 billion invested in the pokies and similar. Anyone can own BHP shares