*Yabby* if you're a SandGroper, how come you're not a *CooNack* with claws instead of a *Yabby?*

..

Con:

3. ... and also, if .. is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal CommonWealth under the name of the CommWealth of Australia. ...

I much prefer the older copies of the Con and really can't stand the sanitised more recent additions.

..

I have heard it said that there was in fact a WA State referendum and the people of WA did actually vote to cede. As to whether or not that is true, and as to whatever else transpired, I do not know.

A much better idea would be a simple law, that any mining company in Oz has to source all its hardware from Oz manufacturers, made from Oz raw materials.

This would spread the wealth through out the country, at the same time stopping the likes of our Julia getting hold of most of it to waste on public servants, & campaign donors.

Next we should reduce academia by 30% & use the money thus saved, to make trade schools free. Currently you pay up front for trade courses, but stick that uni course on hex. Uni courses should be made to concentrate on skills we are currently importing. A quick stroll around Perth will convince you that it is the most prosperous pommy city on earth. It should be our graduates earning those big bucks, & would be if we just had the right courses.

With less arts grads flipping burgers, & more trades folks, & plenty of medium heavy manufacturing, we just might get an economy again.

The only thing left to do would be to outlaw the words might, could probably & possibly from any learned paper, with mandatory jail sentences for offenders. We then just possibly, could, may be, probably, possibly get some sense out of our researchers. At least if we didn't we could sue their ass off for lying to us.

Some posters here have wrongly stated the AU futures fund, had been depleted since labor came to office.
The futures fund holds 70 billion $.
This misinformation of depletion, believed to be distributed by the noalition, for their own agenda.
Tax cuts for miners and small business and a host of other benefits, continue to be suppressed by the noalition, who seem to have lost their way.
Revenue from miners are to be spread far and wide for the benefit of all Australians.

Yes *HasBeen* a tithe plus some the favourable conditions for Oz business's that you have indicated could be a very good thing.

I don't know that I would free them entirely from having to compete against imports, but certainly I am in favour of giving oz biz the means to be able to compete.

..

CHAPTER V. THE STATES

114. A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a state.

..

So it begs the questions as to whose property it is, and whether or not the so called "mining tax" is actually a tax specifically on property.

(Of course Con Law is indeed a complex area, and that is just a quick shot off the hip from a lay person.)

Luciferase, you make a good point as this is exactly where I am coming from.

If you wish to take revenue from state assets(mining tax), then you must distribute ALL STATE REVENUE.

As for the promised cuts to business offered by the tax, what happens if commodity prices fall off. They must do one day. Then what?

As for super profits, why not the banks.

After all, we, the tax payers, propped them up during the GFC, only to have them take an additional $5million odd per day by way of not passing on the interest rates cuts.

Carbon tax.

What is the point of collecting tax from some, then giving it back to others, simply to pay for the increases generated by the tax in the first place.

There is enough evidence to suggest it will cost jobs, as every cent passed on to business will be passed on to the consumer and that in itself should be grounds enough to at least reconsider the amount of tax.

The mining tax is not on the minerals in the ground but on the profits of mining. It's a layer of tax over and above normal company tax paid. That's why it's called a "super" tax and it is adjusted according to market movements in commodity prices.

Through the tax the Commonwealth seeks to to cash in on the rise in commodity prices by extorting states to cap royalties under the threat of a reduction in the GST pie equal to the rise in state revenue from raising royalty levels. The Commonwealth promises assistance to maintain and improve infrastructure supporting mining.

The majority of Australians support this because they do not live in mining states and will be nett beneficiaries while the minority living in mining states the will start at roughly a nett zero position with the introduction of the tax and gradually do worse from there as they can never raise royalty levels from that point onwards.

In 1930 or '31, WA voted to secede and a bunch set off to England to deal with the paperwork. It all fell in a heap somehow or another due to the complexities involved, AFAIK. The state's natural advantages will now become the nation's.

Why doesn't the Commonwealth simply buy a controlling interest in mining company shares, compulsorily or otherwise, rather than effectively dispossessing the mining states?