This article is poor researched and simply cobbles word bites from the news to support hellen's existing prejudice.

For example:
1 Corporate tax is paid on book profit, against which capital works can be written down, such as Forrest's new ventures. However, income tax, payroll tax and mining royalties are still paid. And jobs are maintained.
2. FT's enterprises are a tiny fraction of the mining industry, who on average pays about 42% royalties and tax.
3. With the mining boom, mining is projected to pay nearly 30% of Australia's corporate tax, and without which Australia would not have survived the GFC

Mining is by it's very nature is a dirty business; however, at current extraction rates; most will be played out in around thirty short years? What then?
As for the tax they pay? Some do pay a fair share and some don't? There are a number of instruments that allow many miners and other companies to avoid a fair share of tax?
Paper loans from parents, which then elicit a never ending interest only, of up to 11% commercial rates? While it is not universal practise; it appears to be common?
Then there is the double tax act of 1953, which allows overseas tax payments (alleged) to be used as tax offsets here?
Bob Hawke is on the public record, claiming that around 40% of our international guest corporations, pay no tax to anyone?
Why do we continue to tax earnings or income, which can be written down or written off, when it'd probably be more practical and less avoidable; to simply tax expenditure?
A very simple entirely unavoidable tax on all expenditure; set at just 4.8%, would raise significantly more revenue than all the current convoluted complexity.
And the fact that it was entirely unavoidable, would allow most companies and others to pocket current compliance costs, which can sometimes eat around 7% of the bottom line; and, a win/win outcome.
A very simple modest tax and very low energy costs, would encourage most of the high tech energy companies and manufacture to relocate here; and, provide us with essential income and export revenue, when the mining industry is little more than a few holes in the ground, or memories?

Rhrosty
in mentioning the bit about paying interest to loans to overseas parents you hit on a long-recognised dodge.. for decades now the ATO has run what it calls thin capitalisation rules to prevent profits being transferred in that way. Bob Hawke was prime minister some time back, I might point out..

Ed Lewis
If the article is an accurate reflection of what was in the book, then it cannot possibly be well researched.. If you look back over the posts, it is obvious that the authors of either the book or the article are just throwing muck around, hoping something will stick. I don't know about the environmental side of it, but from the financial point of view they are talking plain nonsense..

The points made with respect to environmental issues are valid, but need to be put into context. Mining projects within Australia are subject to very stringent EIS (Environmental Impact Statements) prior to mine approval, and they must undertake rehabilitation at mine closure. Usually this is very successful in Australia. For example, I would challenge anybody to point to where beach sand mining took place on the NSW coast over the past 30-40 years. The rehabilitation has been very well done.

Environmental issues generally arise in countries less advanced than Australia where some of the same mistakes that were made here many years ago are still being made. While Ok Tedi demonstrably happened, I doubt whether any Australian mining company boards would approve such an approach today.

A further point to be made is that EVERY land use involves environmental impact. I remember, for example, when St Georges Basin was a pristine coastal lagoon surrounded by beautiful bush. Today it has been developed for residential, and lost forever as a pristine environment. Most mines are in very remote locations of relatively low environmental value, and in any case, at cessation of mining are restored.

Every land use requires a trade-off between the value of the land use (residential development, farming, ports, airports etc etc) and the environmental impact involved. Standard rules should be applied to ALL land use. Viewed that way, mining will be seen as relatively low long term impact compared with the benefits offered to the country.

Tax, a very complex issue.

Ask yourself this question.

Have you ever paid cash for something to receive a discount by avoiding the GST?

Now if you have, and that accounts for most of us, then how can we sit there accusing the miners of not paying enough tax.

After all, we avoid tax if we take the cheaper deal, which is highly illegal whereas the miners minimize tax which is legal.

Think about that before you cry fowl on the miners for not paying enough tax.

As for the miners, life without them would see massive changes I doubt many of us are prepared for.

In thirty years there is every chance we will have no manufacturing, no small retail, no tourism and very few jobs.

Remember, a large portion of the workforce is being generated, indirectly, by the mining, and these jobs will also be lost. So brace your selves.

Flat tax is the ONLY FAIR tax !