The response by the mining industry to the Rudd tax has been predictable, as has been the Liberal Party's response. We are reminded that the mining industry saved us during the GFC. Christopher Pyne has made the comment that if we impose such a tax then they may go elsewhere. I am sure Pyne is right. In fact I hope he is right, I for one will not pine if they go. Sure in the short term it will be tough but structuring our future well being around mining is a mistake. If you want to know what the future of mining is like go to Broken Hill - no mining and we have a city desperately holding on to survive. Mining should be the cream on the cake - not the basis of our economic prosperity.
The tax may well mean that some companies will reduce their level of investment - however, the reality is that the stuff will still be in the ground so they will come back. Meanwhile lets get back to building up our manufacturing sector, lets invest in our agriculture and above all lets create a sustainable economy that benefits all Australians where the income does not flow into the pockets of people with no interest in this country other than a means to make them wealthy.

Yep, the response has been predictable including some pretty OTT responses from the mining industry - one already threatening to go offshore. Fact is if some mining companies leave, others will take their place if money is to be made, even if the profit margin has reduced.

AWU leader, Paul Howes' comments on Q&A pretty much summed up my views regarding the tax. These resources are on Australian soil and are owned by the people of Australia, cannot see why some of the spoils cannot remain onshore rather than losing all the profits OS. There is still plenty of incentive to make money just not as much as before, if the current lot don't want to invest others will.

Bit rich for the Libs to talk about burdens for business when they have extended their commitment on the Parental Leave scheme.

*but structuring our future well being around mining is a mistake.*

Ah Baygon, you are clearly a dreamer! I remind you that Australians
owe the rest of the world, around 1 trillion $ net. Agriculture does
what it can, under difficult circumstances. Manufacturing is down
to a bit of niche. How on earth do you propose to pay the bills,
without mining?

This is a question of ethics. Changing the rules because one has
the power to do so, rather then on what was agreed, is possible,
but hardly ethical.

*cannot see why some of the spoils cannot remain onshore rather than losing all the profits OS.*

That is hardly the case Pelican. BHP suggest that the extra tax
will take their payments from 42% of resources mined in Australia,
to 57%. The majority of their shareholders are in fact Australian.
So they are already more then paying their way.

If it were not for miners risking their capital, the Govt would
not even know that there was iron ore or gas/oil in the country!

Are you prepared to risk your life savings, on drilling holes in the
ground to see what is there?

I thought not.

Personally I have the habit of keeping my word on what was agreed.
Personally I also think that a quick grab for more then half,
is a misuse of power and not respecting those who put their balls
on the line, unlike you would.

So its a question of integrity.

I have heaps of it, do you?

Yabby, Wayne Swan has said "...some companies will pay a bit more, of that there is no doubt, because they have been given very generous treatment over recent years because of the failure of the royalty regime."

I think most people would be surprised at how generous the Australian royalty rates have been - WA currently highest (I think) at 7.5% and SA only at 3.5%.

Mining is a lucrative business, yes companies have invested monies in exploration and extraction, they also earn billions in profits much of it going offshore. Those profits more than cover the cost of exploration otherwise there would be no point in mining. This tax, despite the hype is not going to kill the mining industry.

As for integrity, a government has the right to enact rules and laws to the benefit of its people, even if 'integrity' to do that to the best win-win for both parties (citizens and business) has failed in the past.

The word, integrity is easily bandied about but integrity has to do with what is considered fair and reasonable and on what that is, will sometimes be in dispute.

Yabby you answered your own question for me. Yes if I had the money and there were no environmental issues, I would invest in mining given the returns are so lucrative despite the tax. I would still be a very rich woman if wealth was what I aspired to.

PS: I should add the same should apply to mining ventures in developing countries where mineral wealth is exploited without much going toward the betterment of those nations. The people of those countries own the resources but see very little in terms of returns (as much as ownership is defined by the location of the mineral source).

Yabby a misuse of power is when government don't first act in the interests of its citizens whom they represent. As for balls, if we had the balls we would be mining our own resources or insisting on better terms for our mineral wealth.

I should say that there is no doubt that this is a revenue grab but it does not follow that it is an unfair one.

The new taxes are just that, we certainly did not get the tax reform we were waiting for but that is another issue.