Does the mining industry in general need a royal commission into its links to government?

YES!

But it needs to be broader than the antics of the likes of Macdonald, Obeid and Nuttall. It needs to look at the effect that big donations and other close ties between mining companies and politicians has on decision-making.

In other words; we need to look beyond the things we consider to be dodgy and well into the realm of things that we have always considered acceptable… but which are actually fundamentally far from it!

In fact, it needs to be much broader than just the mining companies. Property developers and indeed any entity that can unduly influence government need to come under the spotlight.

For one thing; we really do need to ban political donations, and devise a completely different NEUTRAL way of funding political parties.

Agree with you Ludwig; godd article John.

All of these projects should also require independent benefit-cost studies for public comment in the planning stage, with 'intanglibe' damage, such as to the Reef, included. Also a clear picture of where the money will go - how much goes to overseas companies and investors, how much stays in the country for wages and taxes and how long it will last.

Your figure of 100 billion (!) investment in Gladstone was interesting. Presumably all for fossil fuel -based industries? That would be enough to convert all of Australia,s electricity to renewable power sources with some left over. Energy security forever and no environmental damage.

Instead, Fed. Government prefers to give subsidies to fossil fuel industries and remove the price on carbon. That doesn't benefit us (we've had a carbon price with no net impact on the economy); they are acting for the big corporations not the electors.

I presume that would include union donations too Ludwig. And Roses, there is a new IPCC report due out later this month which might prove interesting. Thanks for the compliment but the article was never intended as an attack on fossil fuels, rather, the book author's views on political influence by miners and big industry.

Roses I think you will find that 100 billion was investment paid for by the coal industry, not taxpayers money thrown away on some pie in the sky dream about alternate power generation.

You do need to start talking sense. The public are deserting the Greens in droves, because of your spin & love affair with hair brained schemes.

I hope there is a chapter on several government sweetheart deals and compensation packages during the 1970-80s surrounding the sandmining of Fraser Island. If not, there should be.

Also, nationwide, nothing has changed in terms of mining and politics. Along with the Murdoch media, Australia's mining magnates can take a bow for their undeniable role in the recent Federal Coalition victory.

Hasbeen, it's you who need to start talking sense. In case you hadn't realized, money spent on renewable energy is investment just like coal fired energy. Sale of the energy pays for the investment - no different to coal. I suggest you read www.bree.gov.au/.../aeta/australian_energy_technology_assessment.pdf

Cost of renewable electricity pays back the investment in the infrastructure. Cost is > 80% capital and fuel costs are nearly zero; this means energy security. Whereas coal fired electricity is > 80% fuel costs, which in many cases is just the cost of digging out of the ground and conveying it to the power station nearby.

What your friends in big fuel-hungry industry dread most is of course the carbon price as this puts a real cost on the pollution caused by coal and makes many more renewable technologies competitive in price(new wind is already competitive with new coal, even without a carbon price).

PS 'Deserting the Greens in droves...?'Increased their senate number by one; Bandt re-elected with increased margin.