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.

I have not yet seem the Howe's interview it is recorded.
But am confident it will be good.
A woman yesterday screamed into the radio mike that we will drive miners of shore.
How do they take the mines with them?
While Kevin, even to me appears to have been gutless at times, ETS ext, he showed guts here in saying it is this country's resources pay some thing for them.
This federal government is failing in some things the ETS hurts.
But the senate has not been this disruptive fore decades.
Rudd will, still win with an increased majority this election.
But if rabbott won?
He would still use this tax, still reform health in about the same way as Rudd.
Have a look at Nick Minchin, a window on the lack of honesty and integrity in rabbotts team.
In a Senate investigation he said cigarette smoke was safe.
This week he said smokers died earlier saving taxpayers money.
integrity honest, both badly needed

BAYGON
You live in a 'dreamland', don't you.

Manufacturing is 'dead in the water' as we as a nation are simply 'non-competetive', full stop!

In fact, two or three generations from now we will be a nation full of 'middle management' as most will be over qualified and nobody will want to do the work. They will all have tickets in 'workplace health and safety' but there will be few jobs on the table.

Like it or not, mining is our 'life line' and without it we will fail.

Belly
This week he said smokers died earlier saving taxpayers money.
So where is the 'un-truth' in this belly? Or is he just another Pauleen Hansen, in which case, the truth often hurts.

So, as for the subject, I think a 'super tax' is a great idea however I feel it should be impossed as a government 'excise' and passed on to the customer. After all, they can't go without it, so they will pay it.

Now of cause, like any cost, it will be passed on, but we can limmit our personal use if we wish to.

They already have excise on fuel, tabaco, so why not 'non-renewables'?

Just a tip.

When the richest man in the land speaks, you should all take VERY CLOSE notice.

Now as for those wanting to leave the minerals in the ground, well that's not going to happen but you yourself don't have to enjoy the benefits they provide.

You can go back to living in a cave, walking everywhere and keeping pigions for communication purposes.

Meanwhile, the rest of us have serious issues to discuss.

Now to all you lot with 'rudd coloured glasses' don't say you have not been warned about this toppic as it has 'life changing' potentials.

Tax by all means, but tax the eggs, not the chickens that lay them.

It's quite simple realy. It's just business.
If there is the required level of profit to be made and the level of risk is o/k, then business as usual. If not, they will go elsewhere.

"If it were not for miners risking their capital", what, like the banks did, and GM and all the other major business houses in the word?

Anyway, that's what shares are all about isn't it?

It is never 'their capital' is it?

It's probably our super stolen from our wallets, minus fat rake-offs, 'executive pays' and 'lobby group' backhanders to politicians that are at risk, not 'miners risking their capital'.

The world's taxpayers carry all the risk, business is constantly withdrawing from their 'free market' cries when they run everything into the ground.... that's why we're in such a global pickle.

As for the worlds fatest man shrieking about how well off he is.... so what?

Let him go to South America where he can wear his white shoes with his Safari suit and hat, and feel like a real emperor.

Belly
There does not appear to be a transcript but the episode can be viewed on the Q&A site:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2883086.htm

Howes was quite impressive. Howes appears to be very knowledgeable, even-handed and across all the relevant issues in terms of what is fair for business, employees and citizenry - which is great to see in a union leader.

*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*

Well that is the thing Pelican, it ain't that simple. IIRC, there
are around 1000 ASX listed miners, most running at a loss. They
rely on capital from investors to keep going. If there is no
potential at the end, of a reasonable profit, investors won't
provide those highly risky funds, many of those companies will
go out of business. There are people losing their shirts every
day in the mining industry, so many ventures go wrong. You just
don't hear about them, they die quietly.

The reason that you and other Australians are doing well today,
is because people took these risks 30 years ago. Australia had
a reputation as a stable investment destination with a competitive
tax regime. The rules were clear. That reputation is now in
jeopardy.

When they do make profits, those companies already pay enormous
taxes, in BHPs case 42%. Rudd conventiently forgot to mention
all those other taxes, when he made his claims. Sheesh, talk
about spin!

The first thing that will happen is that mining shares will drop
in value, so your's and Belly's super funds will lose thousands.
Secondly the Chinese will invest in mining, for they can make
their money at the other end, no need to make a profit on the
mining part, or pay tax in Australia. Rudd's plan is based on
profits, not tonnes. So Australia will lose billions. Hardly
very clever.

Me thinks that the Govt has just shot itself in the proverbial
foot, as so many third world Govts do, when they try to play
dirty and land up losing, then wonder why they are poor.

Forget the idea of the Govt running mines. They can't even
administer a scheme to insulate homes, without stuffing it
up.

Why is it that so many posters resort to derisive contumely in trying to make a point rather than intelligent argument based on some cogent principles?

It seems that anyone or any company that makes money legitimately get excoriated and always labeled "unfair". Return is always directly linked with risk and our miners and their investors have certainly taken plenty of risk. It costs a tremendous amount of money to develop an oil well or a mine and as has already been pointed out there are many listed companies and their investors who are putting their money on the line struggling to get that return. Those waiting on the sidelines for the profits to come in and want their share without having lifted a finger is "unfair".

Of course Australian companies that make good profits should pay their share of tax and they certainly do. With royalties the percentage is 43% compared to the banks and retail of 30%. With the extra that Rudd wants to take (as socialists always do) the rate will be about 55%. The dividends that the resources industry pay are not great because the ongoing investment in further development is so high. Africa has plenty of potential for investment and I would hate to see more money going overseas. We live in a global world now and we invest overseas in the same way as people in other countries invest here and any Mum and Dad can put money in the market and take the risk. It's the ones that don't that complain about excessive profits even though they don't realise they are losing out through their superannuation.

Kevin Rudd always tries to use spin and appeal to the electorate on an emotional basis, For some reason he quoted the 9 billion as the amount paid by the industry when it was only the royalties, but then that's the spin he tries to create.

snake
No-one is saying that mining should not return a reasonable profit and it certainly does.

It is not only about who is 'lifting a finger'. It is about the ownership of the resources and the value of those resources that are ostensibly sold to the mining company (whether we call it a royalty or a tax probably doesn't matter much).

What value do the owners of those resources (us) place on the mineral content? Is the price charged for access to the resources fair given that in Australia's case, most of the mining companies are now owned by OS investors and much of the wealth of those minerals will not benefit Australians. Australians who also pay taxes to provide infrastructures to support the towns and the people involved in mining (often in remote areas).

We can balance profit motive with returning a fair rate of return to those who possess the resources. What is "fair" is of course always debatable and is not easy to derive.

Better yet we could mine the resources ourselves given the cost of exploration and extraction would be soon realised with healthy profits.

So I say again, "don't tax the miners, tax the minerals", we will end up with the same 'net' result. More dollars in our pockets.

If we add an excise of say 25%, then the customers, they being the ones who buy the minerals will have little choice but to pay the price.

If you shift the goal posts and make it less attractive for the miners to take the huge risks they take, then we risk what is almost our entire economy.

We used to ride off the sheeps back. Times have changed and now we ride of the miners backs.

Evidence of this is already emerging with the fall in miners share prices.

Life without them will be grim.

What Rudd seems to intend to do with the tax (I say intend for I have no idea if he will carry through on it) is to fund the externalities associated with mining. One of the criticisms that can made of the way mining conducts its business globally is that the externalities are generally borne by the community - the cola industry for example is not hit with the costs associated with the health problems that people experience who live close to the mine, in Port Pirie atmospheric lead levels have done considerable harm to the children yet again the town is too dependent on BHP to make too much noise. If mines were supposed to pay for their externalities I doubt that there would be any mining; it would simply be too expensive.

*Australians who also pay taxes to provide infrastructures to support the towns and the people involved in mining (often in remote areas).*

Hang on Pelican, given the billions of $ income taxes, payroll taxes,
mining lease taxes, the money is pretty much going one way.

The ones coughing up for infrastructure are State Govts, who are
at present paid royalties by the miners. The problem for a State
like WA is, that the moment they cash in on royalties, the Federal
Govt decreases our % of the GST. We have 10% of the population,
contribute more then that in GST, get back around 6%.

Now Rudd wants to get his hands on that money too, so he has control.
It stinks, it really does.

I would say that if miners paid half their profits to Govts, for
their share of doing nothing, taking no risks, investing no capital,
that is more then enough.

Extortion is not going to work, it never has anywhere. But I think
they will review this tax, as Rudd just found out today, how
many miners are already rethinking the future and cancelling planned
projects.

Next Pelican, you will be saying, that we need more jobs.

Yabby

Companies only threatening to cancel planned projects - lot of hot air. There are plenty of other companies in the queue to get in on the resources boom should they pull out.

Secondly re jobs, well we don't need more jobs at the moment. Due to lack of training and education we have had to depend on skilled immigration to fill some roles. John Symonds made a good point the other night on Q&A that the mining boom has not helped smaller industries such as those requiring skilled mechanics. Service centres and trucking companies cannot compete with mining wages of up to $150,000pa for a mechanic. The mining boom has actually been of detriment to some industries.

rehctub makes a good point but how do we determine what is a fair price for the minerals in the ground? The tax/royalty regime perhaps could be viewed like a departure tax which I have paid in just about every country I have visited. You take money out of the country it gets taxed.

The problem is profits have become so exhorbitant - greed whether it be the greed of voters who only vote for what the government will do for them, to the greed of business who don't even honour the commitment of mum and dad shareholders and who allow (abetted by governments) vast sums of money to be squandered on executive bonuses, payoffs in the millions to get rid of shoddy executives and maladministration. Not to mention no government has yet outlawed the practice of ignoring completely the votes of shareholders on many financial decisions in relation to salaries and other options for executives and board members.

One mining company recently complained its profits went down to a mere $US5.877 Billion. I don't know about you Yabby but I reckon that is a pretty good return on the investment.

I am not going to pretend I know what the 'fair' price for the minerals are but so far I reckon the mining companies have got it pretty cheap.

I doubt that the payment of state and federal mining royalties will put much of a dent in the profits of the big “Australians” considering the multi-national projects BHP and Rio have in some 40 countries. However, a major concern for these mining giants are the submissions to the Human Rights’ Commission and the unresolved allegations of corruption, human rights' and ecological abuses of communities around the planet:

http://londonminingnetwork.org/2010/04/rio-tinto-a-shameful-history-of-human-and-labour-rights-abuses-and-environmental-degradation-around-the-globe/

http://www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/Individualcompanies/B/BHPBilliton?sort_on=publication&batch_size=10&batch_start=2

BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have not paid the full mining royalties for fifty years in WA and have a social responsibility to pay the same as all other miners. In fact there are several countries where they pay no royalties at all.

In addition, a soon to be published report commissioned by the UN comes amid growing concern that no one is made to pay for most of the use, loss and damage of the environment, which is reaching crisis proportions in the form of pollution and the rapid loss of freshwater, clean air, plants and animals, fisheries and fertile soils. The report estimates that damage to the environment caused by the top 3,000 companies in the world is around $2.2 trillion.

If one wants to invest in companies who continue bludging off the environment with impunity in the 21st century - hence the dire projections on anthropogenic climate change, I would caution “en guarde!”

*Secondly re jobs, well we don't need more jobs at the moment.*

Sheesh Pelican, I will remind you of that one and rub it under your
nose now and then, at appropriate times :) For of course for
every highly paid mining job, a whole lot of other jobs are
created, for the less skilled, people in cities, etc.

Next, never mind that we Australians owe 1 trillion $ and still
run a monthly current account deficit. We shall repay them
with sea shells perhaps :)

Now you are complaining that mining companies pay too much!
You, who have total faith in the goodness of Govt, had better
explain why they don't train more qualified people, when it
is well within their power to do so.

*The problem is profits have become so exhorbitant*

They have? In relation to how much investment? Australian
workers basically own most large companies through their super
funds. Are you suggesting to Belly and other workers, that their
super funds should make less profit?

*One mining company recently complained its profits went down to a mere $US5.877 Billion. I don't know about you Yabby but I reckon that is a pretty good return on the investment.*

The figure is meaningless, unless its looked at in relationship
to the amount of capital being risked. How much was it?

The local bank will pay you 7% on your deposits, with no risk.
If you stand to lose the lot, what should your return be?

I remind you that even huge mining companies, with all their
expertise, can get it very wrong and lose heaps. BHP risked
2 billion$ on Ravensthorpe with their nickel venture. The price
of nickel crashed, the new technology did not work as well as
planned, they landed up writing off the lot. They lost about
the same on their hot briquette plant. Mining is not for the
faint hearted and those not prepared to lose their investments,
if markets or technology go wrong.

Pelican I share your view of Howe's he followed Shorten two very outstanding leaders in a row.
extremists on both sides have charged Australia with being an open pit exporting our future and believe me if it was China we taxed the rubbish would be quietened.
In a way it is, they take the super tax in their costs too.
If posters stop, some at least rechtub, take a breath, read informed comment from both sides.
Then ask what country has our export minerals in large enough areas to compete, they may well be forced to do more than rant like red necks about the tax future Australians will be glad of, a country's wealth is not counted in empty holes.

Dickie dear, miners dig holes in the ground, because you the
consumer demand it. You use pots and pans in your house,
you want electricity on tap, your house is loaded with copper
wires, you own appliances made of steel, you want a computer
to entertain you. The list goes on.

You then go on to make a bunch of babies, who all want the same
and more.

Miners simply respond to your demands, as well as those of
7 billion others. So the burden of environmental damage done
by mining, is on your shoulders too.

You could always try the alternative. We could provide you with
a loin cloth and a wooden spear, you and the pet goat could wander
off and see how you go. Mind you the pet goat would be nervous,
for she'd be about the only thing you would most likely catch for dinner :)

Some great points Protagoras.

That is the trouble with the unfettered population growth advocates. We do need goods that mining provides, but the more people the more mines are dug and land and environment degraded. We do need mines but how many can the environment withstand?

Mining companies are not revealing all in their environmental studies as was shown in the Liverpool Plains report and effect on artesian waters and local farming communities. It was ironic that even Barnaby Joyce sided with the environmentalists on this one, not for any environmental altruism, just because the farmers were opposed to furuther mining development in the region.

South of Canberra there is a small Gold (and copper and zinc) mine mooted for near Cooma (Chakola project) despite the positives of job creation the biggest concern for nearby farms and residents is there is no water. This mine will need to use a lot of water. It is planned that water will be sourced from the already struggling Numeralla River. Jobs are one thing but sometimes you have to choose between the long term good rather than short term economic benefits.

In some cases, no amount of mining royalties even if paid up, will compensate for continual damage to environment nor the effect on water management.

“Dickie dear, miners dig holes in the ground, because you the
consumer demand it.”

Yabby – I am one of the progeny of five generations of workers who dug those holes. Members of my family have had illustrious (and not so illustrious) careers in the mining industry. Please desist from trying to sell ice to an Eskimo.

In WA, the state government is slashing funds to environmental agencies while huge subsidies are being provided to polluting and unsustainable industries. Last year, Barnett’s “dig baby dig” projects saw EPA environmental assessments ignored and $80 million allocated to provide subsidies to mining companies for exploration and tens of millions of taxpayers’ funds are being spent on establishing a massive LNG processing facility on the pristine and unique Kimberley coast.

Pastoral companies who depend on groundwater in the state of WA may not be so thrilled when the following tenement holders have extracted uranium, contaminated the groundwater and retreated with an assurance that remedial measures have been 'successful.':

(Please allow a few seconds for the red, black and gold tenement circles to appear on the map):

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&t=h&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=101724410662104548145.0004757aca0e25c4e05e5

Second rate people in government refuse to accept that the extraction of gold and diamonds, from an outraged planet, is predominantly for jewellery and merely exploited to appease human vanity. They are not mined for the “pots and pans” as you claim.

I trust whilst you gloat over the economic benefits of the gold and diamond mining industry, you will spare a thought for the millions of workers who made that possible. Many thousands, if not millions globally of discarded workers barely shuffling around in the throes of a slow and lingering death from silicosis and other mining diseases.

Meanwhile the mining companies gleefully announce their bumper profits to the wide-eyed and delighted shareholders who are sufficiently deluded in believing that ‘world’s best practice’ no longer has catastrophic impacts on biodiversity or human health. Big “Australian” multi-national miners doing business with the world’s worst despots is a mere peccadillo.

PS: Kindly refrain from addressing me as ‘dear.’ The thought of being your ‘dear’ is most unappealing.

Dickie dear, the "dear" refers to you as an "old dear" or grandma,
rather then my dear. Old dears is what we call you geriatrics.

There was silly me thinking that industry used lots of industrial
diamonds and the electronics industry used gold etc. The point
is, its not up to the mining industry to decide wether people
should be able to buy gold wedding rings, its women like you who
insist on marriage with all the bells and whistles.

We know all about how the EPA do their job. Just shut off the
water on those stations taken over, let those creatures die of
thirst. Then let the wild dogs breed with wild abandon. Frankly
in my eyes they don't have much credibility left.

The fact is that our state and nation rely on mining for a living,
we are stuffed without it, that is the reality.

I personally would not work in a mine, its not my scene. Its up
to workers who do, to make sure that they work in safe conditions.
By what I can see from the people doing fly in fly out, far from
silicosis, their biggest problem is how to spend their paycheques,
or the worry of the wife shagging somebody else, whilst they are
out making a living up North.

I am the first to admit that I enjoy living in a a lovely and natural
environment, which I do. But I also accept the reality that if
humans want to breed like rabbits and head from 7 billion to
10 billion, despite my protests, they then want everything that
opens and shuts too, that I am not so foolish to blame the mining
industry, rather consumers such as you.

“Frankly in my eyes they (EPA) don't have much credibility left.”

Agreed Yabby. However, the bores on pastoral stations have been closed due to the cancellation of pastoral leases for conservation, a consequence of the wholesale environmental carnage your industry has committed in outback Australia.

In 2000, Mike Letnic of the School of Geography at UNSW warned that ‘there is insufficient attention paid to the role that pastoralists and their management strategies play in the dispossession and degradation of arid Australia.

‘ A historical overview of ecology and land management suggests that the fragility of Australia's arid ecosystems was identified over 100 years ago, and despite repeated calls for reform, effective regional management schemes are still vehemently opposed by pastoralists.

‘I argue that, until the role played by pastoralists and their management strategies in the degradation of arid Australia has been adequately communicated, pastoralists will remain a powerful political lobby capable of thwarting the implementation of sustainable land management practises.’

Greed and ignorance and the consequences predominantly caused by your powerful political lobbying industry in WA now sees salinity engulfing the equivalent land mass of 19 football fields per day.

Thanks predominantly to your industry, the S/W of WA is officially listed as one of the planet’s biodiversity hotspots with 600 threatened plant and animal species.

Now your industry is screeching about the land grabs by the mining industry – pot - kettle = hypocrisy!

Meanwhile and to appease human vanity, the self-regulated opal mining industry at Coober Pedy has left approximately 2 million abandoned opal mine shafts, the legacy of exploratory drilling, not from >60 years ago but the last 30 years, sitting uncapped, ready to entrap the unknowing victim.

Results published in the journal, Ecological Management and Restoration this year, advise that uncapped opal mines in the area are killing as many as 10-28 million reptiles per year.

So it remains, two steps forward for society and three steps back but get your hard hat on Yabby. One way or another, the unevolved primitive species, Homo-erectus, clutching obscene bags of blood money, is now being threatened with extinction.

Pelican >>>One mining company recently complained its profits went down to a mere $US5.877 Billion.

And there in lies the problem pelican.

A mining company invests billions to make millions, often their investment is to no evail.

On the other hand, banks, who simply enter into a commercial lease, pay the rent, pay the wages, have guaranteed 'low risk' business, yet make similar profits.

Why don't we tax the banks and their 'super profits' as well?

And Belly, I have no problem with a 'super tax', in fact, I think it's a great idear. The only problem is the way it is planned.

If a minier invests say $1billion in the hope of returning say $100million, they will think twice if the return is reduced to say $40 million or less.

They may well say, 'not worth the risk' and this is the cruts of the matter.

Tax the minerals, not the miners.

*However, the bores on pastoral stations have been closed due to the cancellation of pastoral leases for conservation *

Err so we shut down the bores and let any remaining stock and wild
animals die of thirst. How sweet. Next the grass grows tall with
nothing to eat it, one lightning strike and the whole lot goes
up a huge wildfires, killing anything that remains. Wow,
what conservation measures!

Pastoral leases are quite sustainable, if they are not overstocked.
Some pastoralists do the right thing, some dont'. Govt could
easily legislate on that one, to make it sustainable.

But it won't matter now, for wild camels are moving in. They can
do without the waterholes and simply trample the lot.

Do you even understand why salinity became such a problem in some
areas? Govt released CP blocks and forced farmers to clear the
lot, as part of the conditions. If they did not comply, they
could lose their land. Now you want to blame farmers. No more
spin please Dickie!

Yes some species are threatened in WA. Ask somebody who works for
Calm, they will tell you the reason. Foxes and wild cats, wiping
them out.

*So it remains, two steps forward for society and three steps back but get your hard hat on Yabby.*

No need for me to get anything on Dickie. For I live in relative
bliss, away from the rat race. The land that I care for, is now
in far better nick then when I took it on and its farmed sustainably.
If it continues to improve until I fall off the proverbial perch,
then I will have done my bit. If humanity can't see the problem
of increasing the global population by a quarter million people
a day, despite my efforts to raise this as an issue for the last
thirty years or so, there is nothing I can do and I don't tend
to worry about things that I cannot change, its pointless.

If the human race takes things over the edge, then so be it. I
won't be here.

“Err so we shut down the bores and let any remaining stock and wild animals die of thirst. How sweet.”

“How sweet?” Yabby – Your deluded state of mind is obvious and I understand that all this stuff is way over the head of old timers because on an abandoned pastoral station, there would be no stock remaining and if there were, the owner risks prosecution.

Furthermore if you wish to know which industry is responsible for wiping out massive numbers of wild animals, look no further than your lonely and childless old self who continually boasts: “I’m alright Jack - bugger everyone else.”

Crikey: “Digging through the mining industry’s lies”

‘Don’t believe a single word you read in the mainstream media from the mining industry about the impact of the Resource Super Profit Tax.

‘The mining industry routinely and systematically lies about government policy, with a long-running Chicken Little act about even the smallest policy changes that might affect it. And most of the media uncritically recirculate their lies, either because journalists aren’t sceptical and informed enough to subject their claims to analysis, or because they complement the smear campaigns run by the right-wing media.

‘The Government will now be criticised for attacking the mining industry, which is dominated by vast multi-nationals generating billions of dollars……’:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/04/how-can-you-tell-the-mining-industry-is-lying-its-issued-a-press-release/?source=cmailer

And all these threats of going offshore! Well Rio’s not fussy with whom they do business and has a JV with the Iranian government at the Rossing uranium mine in Namibia.

Let the multi-nationals do a deal to erect their lethal third world smelters in Iran.

They can then flog off the existing smelters in Australia which are built on freehold land before they sod off. The land, on which the mining tenements are leased and the resources belong to Australia! Tough!

http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=1453493

Rehctub, you make a very valid point. The big winners
from all this, will be the Chinese. They can afford
to mine with zero profits, so will pay zero tax, for
of course with Chinese accounting, all profits can be
made by value adding in China. Australian taxpayers
will be the losers. With companies like BHP, who
are majority Australian owned, they are accountable
and pay tax right here in Aus, to the tune of 43% of
profits. But it will pay BHP to make future investments
elsewhere, where taxes are lower then the new Australian
rip off.

Dickie dear, we know what's dying on these old stations,
the press went and had a look and found bodies everywhere.
Even kangaroos and other wildlife, can't now get a drink.

Sounds like you are a bit old to understand the irony
of my post, but never mind, you can't help it, fair enough.

I live by example, if everyone lived as sensibly as me,
the world would not have a problem. But I refuse to become
a hysterical old tart like yourself, due to human stupidity,
for which I can't be blamed.

Where Iran invests its money, has little to do with this
discussion, but that is apparently beyond you.

Perhaps you should have another cup of tea and a nice
lay down for a while

Yabby, If you back into your yabby hole and cover the top you might not be dug up and pay SPTax by being someones dinner.
What is in Australian ground belongs to us all. If some one wants to use any ore, they have to pay royalty. Even going back 60 years ago, my dad cut fire wood. He had to apply for a plot of under growth trees, (and wasn't allowed to touch large timber trees)and if granted he paid royalty on every ton taken.
I find it hard to believe that rabbott,lou Costello's mate, rejects everything suggested. Why can't he be reasonable and try a few ideas.
God help us all if ever he leads this country.
The world has to pay Australia for any item they need and the profit has to assist Australians
Qutas

“Hysterical old tart?” Now OLO's resident sheep herding cowboy comes packing with two Colt .45 revolvers and a double barrel shotgun to shoot up 'hysterical old tarts' so ya better believe that BHP Billiton is ‘majority Australian owned.’ and Oi!……Ya better believe it even it even if it sucks!

‘Now there are some real doosies in that little effort. The first thing to observe, just for the record, is that BHP Billiton is, in fact, about 60 per cent owned by non-Australian shareholders and Rio Tinto is nearly 85 per cent foreign owned.’

(Author, Matthew Stevens is a veteran Australian business writer and is married to BHP Billiton, Media Relations Chief, Sam Evans) And Oi gun totin' sheep herding Cowboy! Ya better believe it!

Its always funny to watch people arguing about a subject they know little about...
The sustainability of mines will be compromised by any new charges, the ultimate effects will become a burden evident in timeframes much greater than those of political tenure.
The cut-off grade, or the point at which the concentrations of valuable minerals is lower than the cost of extracting them, will be raised to compensate for new taxes.
For example, an open-cut gold mine would have a cut-off grade of about 1 gram per tonne, underground about 5 grams per tonne. Once the cut-off is raised to maybe 1.2 grams per tonne, and that grade is reached, the mine reaches its end point and the remaining ore is effectively sterilised by being subeconomic.
But I suppose thats years down the track, and somebody elses problem.

Patthebogan Good point - this was precisely the reason for my post in the first place - regardless of taxes mines are essentially a finite resource. Often referred to as the Dutch Disease it is the tendency of governments to enjoy the good times brought about by mining without building up an economy that can survive independent of mining.
The resources boom should be regarded as a bit of cream - instead over the past 30 years it has become the mainstay of our economy.
Lazy state governments in WA, Queensland in SA are using their resources as a means to prop up their economies without building a manufacturing base.
The normal cry that we cannot do this because our wages are too high is nonsense - look at Germany - wages are on a par with those paid here but is has a robust manufacturing base.
There is little point in developing a manufacturing industry based on products where we cannot be competitive - however using the resources boom to invest in R & D to create the products will be needed in a post oil world is an obvious direction; one that politicians are reluctant to take.

http://www.bhpbilliton.com/annualreports2008/2008-business-review-and-annual-report/annual-report/shareholder-information/share-ownership/index.html

There ya go, ya hysterical old tart :)

Of BHP Billiton Ltd's 525'000 shareholders, roughly 503'000 have an
Australian address. Half a million Aussie shareholders, in your
language.

CHP Billiton Plc, which is registered in London, has lots of
British and South African shareholders. Fair enough, given that
they have lots of South African minds and operate globally.

But examine the figures yourself, then tell me which nation has
the largest shareholding in BHP Billiton.

Howdy Cowboy – youse bin smokin’ some of that good ole Hillbilly grass again?

“Of BHP Billiton Ltd's 525'000 shareholders, roughly 503'000 have an Australian address.” Half a million Aussie shareholders, in your language.”

Australian shareholders dude? Not in my language. Australian addresses? Nominee companies? Those limited to possessing half a sensory neuron are far too obtuse to know that it is not the ASX’s responsibility to count shares held and traded off-shore.

The present legal framework allows every unsavory and/or criminal operator to hide behind the concept of ‘nominee’ companies.

If one reads the Top 20 shareholders of a company in its annual report – that is, who owns and runs the company – more often than not one learns nothing because the major shareholders are hidden under ‘National Nominees’, 'Commonwealth Custodians’, ‘Merrill Lynch Nominees’ 'J P Morgan Nominees' and other such mysterious entities. Allo allo!

So Cowboy show us the investors' addresses!

On BHP’s register there are in excess of 4 billion shares under ‘corporate’ and around 1.3 billion ‘private.’ And the majority shares held by ‘nominee’ companies – oops!

Quit chewin' that bakky Cowboy and go herd ya Baa Baaaaas.....!

Hehe Dickie dear, at least you sometimes still have a sense of
humour :)

Those shareholders are indeed known to BHP and they will tell
you that they have over half a million Australian shareholders.

But never mind all that, our very own Prime Minister admits that
BHP is 40% foreign owned, in other words the rest is Australian.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/rudd-riles-bhp-as-new-tax-hits-shares-20100503-u3un.html

Now even at your age, you should be able to work out, how much
the rest is! Its hardly a "foreign" company.

qutas,
Yes the minerals do belong to us. However, ten, or even fifteen years ago, we didn't know just how much we had (QLD gas and coal I'm talking about), yet, now that the miners have spent billions upon billions exploring the country to find,identify and annalize these deposits, now, after the risky work has been done, and paid for, 'Mr DuD' wants a larger slice of the pie.

Why, because he has stuffed almost everything he has touched and he sees this a 'life line'.

It has been suggested that our miners may only return around 6% on investment if the new tax is impossed. Why bother!

I will keep saying this until the cows come home.

Tax the minerals, not the miners!

Now as for building a 'manufacturing hub' in Australia, you're kidding!

Germans are very smart and have great work ethics. Although they are loosing business to cheap chineese imports.

Aussies on the other hand are generally lazy and don't mind working their huge '38hr week', so long as it doesn't effect their social life.

Keep dreaming!

Of course Cowboy – and such profound wisdom displayed by a Hillbilly from Bareback Mountain County and aren't we blessed to have such a know-all on OLO who knows everything about nothing?

By the way Cowboy what’s the latest on the scandal that’s been under investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission since last August, with allegations that BHP’s been bribing government officials in third world countries?

Ok Dickie dear, its great to see that you have conceded about
BHP ownership and that this time Mr Rudd in fact knows more
then you do.

Yes indeed, a million $ has gone missing, paid to the Cambodian
Govt at their request, for the right to look for a particular
mineral. Perhaps Combodian accounting standards are not
the best. The SEC needs something to make a noise about,
given that their lack of US law enforcement, was largely to
blame for the GFC. A million $ is frankly peanuts in that
world.

So you'd better dream up something more original dear :)

I am a bit confused about how this tax works.
Does this mean the Chinese Goverment owned Shenhua (third largest after BHP and the Queen's Rio Tinto) goes tax free?

What is to stop Rio/ BHP/ multinationals moving HQ offshore, if the tax regime is onerous, like Hardy?

Who owns the dirt we send to China?

PS a brief history of Chinese mining in the Lotus Land of Oz
http://www.chinamining.org/Investment/2010-01-20/1263950019d33542.html