Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave no quarter, nor was any apparently sought, when he strode before the Perth Press Club on Wednesday to defend his resource super-profits tax.

Keep digging that hole. Illustration: John Tiedemann

Many in the Perth media felt the PM’s address provided the perfect backdrop from which Mr Rudd could make a form of policy detour, to deftly change tack, and to somehow head off a simmering confrontation with the nation’s powerful mining lobby - a swordfight that is showing every sign of looming into an electoral bloodbath in the state.

A Westpoll conducted for The West Australian a fortnight ago suggests the Federal Government is on a hiding to nothing in WA, with the prospect of it holding just two seats at the next election, Perth and Fremantle, from a possible 15. Labor holds only four in the state.

The political pressure is rising, evidence of which came in Wednesday’s ABC Television 7pm bulletin when a live cross with reporter Alisha O’Flaherty, who was covering the Rudd visit, was abruptly dropped when the reporter inadvertently dropped the F word live to air.

For much of the state’s media this week, the mining tax is the only issue in town, and the subject Mr Rudd took an agonising 15 minutes to get into in his speech on Wednesday.

WA Labor hopefuls looking for political circuit breaker would have walked away deeply disappointed.

The prime minister was at his combative best during his address; resolute in his defence of the mining tax, and giving no sign of compromise, or any risk of him caving in toward industry demands to “axe the tax”.

Sure, Mr Rudd made it clear that talks were ongoing, and that individual company concerns were being examined.  He also hinted there was scope for movement on the “transitional arrangements”.

As for the thrust of the tax, Mr Rudd made it clear he was not budging, no matter how loud industry banged the drum. 

More than once in his address, Mr Rudd returned to the speechwriter’s spin; he was in Perth to listen, to consult, and to consider, but all the same, he believed the tax was “about right”.

Where that leaves Mr Rudd politically seems understood by everyone except the man himself.

A photo of Australia’s fourth richest man, mining magnate Andrew Forrest, in warm embrace with Deputy Opposition Leader, on the front page of today’s The West Australian, only added fuel to the perception that Mr Rudd has miscalculated the public mood towards taxing the mining industry, and risks eroding what little support that party has in the state.

The prime minister needs a political fix to overcome the simple fact that the imposition of the 40 per cent resource rent tax is tied to restoring a Rudd Government budget surplus within three years, and three years ahead of the original plan.

There is also near-universal political support for another of Mr Rudd’s big promises, the increase in the superannuation guarantee from 9 per cent to 12 per cent for all Australian workers, which is also bankrolled by the new tax.

Make changes to the new tax, and the promise of a surplus evaporates, along with the hopes of ordinary wage earners looking to boost their superannuation pay-out.

Neither is a particularly good look for Mr Rudd’s working families.

The PM may well believe that the resource super-profits tax represents good policy for the country, but he has mismanaged the politics of the debate, just months out from a likely Federal election.

Former Prime Minister John Howard was put to sword in 2007 for ignoring the polls, and for simply trusting that voters could be swayed by his personal performance in the election campaign of 2007.

The supporters of Kevin 07 would be hoping that as far as jousting is concerned, Mr Rudd ought to be able to give more than he gets.

61 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Gary Cox says:

      06:56am | 11/06/10

      I don’t understand the connection between the mining tax and the super increase. So if the mining tax goes through I’ll have to pay 9% super to my employees and the government will pay the next 3%? Yeah, I’d like to see that.

    • Phil says:

      08:14am | 11/06/10

      Gary, whilst there are many inner city well educated chardoney sipping socialists that vote greens and labor, the campaign of saying the mining tax pays for super increases is there to fool the sheeple whose iq is around the same as the ambient temperature of an igloo. They are sold on the benefits of an extra $100,000 in retirement, when if they actually got off their rusty dusty and did some hard work, made some sacrifices and perhaps took some calculated risks they would be significantly better off than that.
      In some cases, they are saying that your profit saving of 2% will offset the 3% extra super, but as I have pointed out here, not that many businesses I know make a similar percentage profit that they do pay wages. It also does nothing for sole traders and partnerships.
      Whilst I agree with the increase in super to counter an aging population, why not 3% extra for employers and the same extra from employees, thus super will go to 15%, a much higher margin.
      Then offer the super funds to invest in infrastructure partnerships with guaranteed returns that the counrty needs, thus our productivity will increase along with the monies for retirees and the monies wont get wasted along the way by fund managers and bad investment decisions.
      Rudd is looking increasinly like a one term wonder, anger in QLD and WA against this tax is mounting.
      Abbott just needs to get the states to increase royalties by say 5-10% of their current amounts, or have them pay a little more against a lot more, with the money to go to hospitals and infrastructure and he will win.

    • dovif says:

      09:36am | 11/06/10

      Gary

      Quite simply, linking the Mining tax to company tax rate and superannuation saving, is Rudd’s way to try to bribe people into supporting his new tax

      1. the company tax cuts are bribes that he hope will turn non-mining companies against the miners, ie you guys pay less tax, so support me in taking $12 billion a year from the miners
      2. the superannuation increase (not paid by government) are bribes to working Australians and superannuation fund, ie you guys gets more superannuation, so support me in taking $12 billion a year from the miners

      This is Rudd’s way, to divide Australia, to use their self interest against each other, so Rudd has more money to spend.

    • Jason says:

      10:11am | 11/06/10

      Phil sounds like one of the angry mining rich list. Have a look at http://www.futuretax.gov.au/pages/FairerSuperannuation.aspx. There is also the cut in company tax that the RSPT will pay for. I think that their isn’t anger mounting in the west, only from the mining rich list. Most of the community cabinet meeting questions were about other things

    • John A Neve says:

      01:53pm | 11/06/10

      Dovif,

      You are part correct, but it’s not Rudd that is divisive it’s our taxation system.
      Year after year, we add a little extra tax to smokers and they whinge. The we add a liitle to alcohol and the drinkers whinge.
      Then we reduce company tax or introduce negative gearing and some one is happy.
      The we most people a tax cut and most people are happy.
      Then we change the rules on annuities and some people are unhappy and so it goes on.
      Dovif, our whole tax structure is divisive and none of you give a sh*t, just blind mice following a political Piper.

    • John A Neve says:

      02:39pm | 11/06/10

      Dovif,
      Says “This is Rudd’s way, to divide Australia”. Sorry, but I don’t agree, the problem is not Rudd, but our taxation system.
      We add a little tax to alcohol and the drinkers whinge.
      Then we add a little to smokes and the smokers whinge.
      Then we cut back on fringe benefits and the business world whinges.
      We introduce negative gearing and some people are happy.
      So we have some vote buying tax cuts, now lots of people are happy.
      On and on a tinker here and a tinker there.

      The trouble Dovif, is people like you are too blind to see the truth, you suffer from political blindness. It’s the tax system that is divisive not Rudd.

    • Tom says:

      03:11pm | 11/06/10

      Dovif what a nonsensical comment. The tax is to pay for:

      1. Increased super
      2. Company tax cuts
      3. Infrastructure

      No more and no less. To say that he is bribing people by telling them what the tax will pay for is plainly ridiculous. You cannot argue against the tax without also arguing aginst what it will pay for.

    • Thumper says:

      03:43pm | 11/06/10

      Wrong again Tom.  The increase to Superannuation contributions is met by your employer - nothing to do with the RSPT and no cost to the Government

    • dovif says:

      03:49pm | 11/06/10

      Tom
      exactly my point, this is Rudd’s way to create conflict between employer and employee, to create conflict between different employers

      What best way is to isolate the mining industry, then to buy off the support of all the other industry? The last 2 days, we have seen him committing to spending $4.3 billion dollars from the mining tax, to try to buy votes in area where the tax is going to hit hardest.

      It is very easily done, Rudd can anounce a tax of 40% on every industry and then give them to all the PAYE earners, for the people with no idea, it means $100 a week in everyone’s pocket, so people won’t that tax has increased

      What RUDD has done
      Take 40% profit of the mining company
      ensure all other companies are happy, by giving them a tax cut
      make sure everyone else is happy with more super

      Divide and CONquer, everyone else is happy and the miners are the only unhappy people

    • Dovif says:

      04:19pm | 11/06/10

      Tom

      Wrong, Rudd is trying to divide people by linking the mining tax to superannuation increases and company tax rate decrease

      For example if Harvey Norman makes a $100 million profit, Rudd is giving them $2 million in tax cut, but they will only get it if the mining tax get through ... ie if you agree with my tax, you get $2 million a year

      Same with superannuation contributions, Rudd is tellng working Australians, if you want an additional 3% a year on your super, vote for my mining tax, for a person earning $100k a year, Rudd is asking employer to pay them an extra $3k, but only if they support the mining tax

    • Phil says:

      05:30pm | 11/06/10

      Jason

      Wow I am on the angry miners rich list am I. Actually I own less than $200,000 of shares in a small mining company which is yet to take anything from its tenaments, although it looks good for the future. I bought them at 22c now they closed at $1.95 today, so I took a risk many years ago when the company was small, hav e received no dividends so far, I have traded the stock to make some money but unfortunately the money is tied up in my super, so no I am not a rich miner, just a self employed person working to make a living.

      As for the community cabinet meeting, dont you think that Kevin Rudd would have vetted the audience. He wont goonto real shows and get interviewed, even Red Kerry got to him the other day. He would rather tell Rove who he would turn gay for or on the Kyle and jackie O show and its super intelligent audience than take the real questions. He struggles with housewives on Channel 7. I take the questions during the community cabinet meeting with a grain of salt.

      As for the super I say great increase it but the company tax nor the RSPT is paying the increase its the employers who are paying it.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      04:22pm | 12/06/10

      Thumper,

      It is you that has failed to research the topic. The proceeds from the tax for superannuation are for low income earners, below $35,000. The government will kick in $500 dollars thus increasing their super over thirty years by approximately $100,000 subsequently relinquishing the governments tax burden to pay you a pension.

    • Against the Man says:

      07:25am | 11/06/10

      Rudd seems to be his own worse enemy. Failed policy after failed policy with a dozen broken promises thrown in for good measure. Australians must be sick of this lack of performance. We need smart, high archivers in governments, not lame used car salesmen. I take it back, used car salesmen are more compentent then the average labor minister, aeh Mr Garrett (Are the beds burning?)

    • Winkle1 says:

      01:47pm | 14/06/10

      In support of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd: For all of you Rudd bashers baying for his demise and dismissing his competence ... I think what we have happening across Australia at present and I suspect in many parts of the media, is a sad and sorry case of “GROUP THINK” Def: People who stop their own critical thinking and instead becoming part of the ‘mob’ with Tunnel vision, not considering alternative viewpoints and possibilities but dogedly following one train of thought. 
      Some decry the current generation of being in need of instant gratification. Well we should all instead take a good look at ourselves. So Rudd’s Labour puts forward a stimulus package and Australia escapes the worst of the GFC. Education building infrastructure is advanced in the process but all we hear is how a few buildings were expensively costed by building companies.  They put forward an environmental emissions strategy which is blocked continuously in the Senate so the Government shelves that particular policy but NOT their intent or commitment to tackle the issue. Their insulation scheme admittedly is poorly implemented but little is said of the culpable small business owners who rorted that system and who were ultimately responsible for the deaths of 4 young people. Now the Super Tax … when John Hewson (past Liberal Leader and current economist), Alan Fells, Ken Henry, Bernie Fraser (past head of the Reserve Bank), 60 Economists across the country and Gerry Harvey (yes he agrees with the Tax if not its unveiling by amateurs as he referred to the Government) These are people whose opinion I respect.
      Grow up! There are no quick fix’s, no success without failure … it’s not easy for Government just as it is not always easy as a citizen when policy affects us unkindly. Do you honestly think that running Rudd into the dirt and dismissing him unfairly as ‘hopeless’ and plotting his demise with a quick fix, of a change in leadership or Party, is a mature national response to domestic or international policy decisions or difficulties. It’s like watching and listening to a mob with a simplistic objective, devoid of individual critical thought and consideration.
      If you wish him gone … I warn you to consider what the alternative has to offer, is it any different in policy or execution … or will that too become the new target for the Mob.
      Be careful what you wish for … you might just get it.

    • T.Chong says:

      08:36am | 11/06/10

      The"anger” seems about as spontaneous and genuine as the “Tea Baggers”,
      How dare anyone upset the prat from Fortesque Metals, the poor chappy s bottom lip is still all a quiver.
      An interesting issue- if all these leases now are worthless, then why arent any of the companies forfieting their claims ?

    • Dan says:

      09:23am | 11/06/10

      I agree, the poor liddle mining execs! if it’s so unfair why not apply it to all big companies. I wonder how much the big banks pay in tax, maybe they should be subject to a super profits tax as well!

    • dovif says:

      09:39am | 11/06/10

      T Chong

      I agree, how about the construction companies making their “Super” profits from ripping off the Rudd government on the school building scheme

      They definitely deserve a super profit tax

    • Harriet says:

      09:58am | 11/06/10

      I would like a campaign started for return of mining leases. Whenever a mining exec says a project cannot go ahead because of the super profits tax, then that lease is returned.  The bright side, this could be a savings measure for future generations. May be the Greens could start this campaign.

    • Damian says:

      10:25am | 11/06/10

      T. Chong - have you considered the fact that Fortescue was built from a two person operation into a company employing 3000 people? Do you think it would have been possible to get finance to develop an iron ore mine (ever seen one?) if this tax had been in place ten years ago? Not likely. Mining leases are not worthless but it takes an enourmous investment to extract the value.

      Harriet - mining leases are a form of property right and run for years because it takes many years to carry out the exploration, get the environmental approvals and then finance a project. A lease can sit idle for years until a commercial case can be made to develop a mine on that site or mining technology changes to make the process pay. Take away some more certainty from the industry and you will scare away more investment.

    • Old Bloke says:

      11:06am | 11/06/10

      Mr Chong misses the point. 
      New investment is no longer attractive to companies taking risk in developing mines when their return is deemed excessive (super profits??) when they start to earn in excess of 6% of thier investment.
      Fixed interest deposits in the banks starts to look much more attractive!

    • Willy K says:

      11:21am | 11/06/10

      Damian - don’t waste energy on Chong, Persephone and the other ALP trolls here.  People of that ilk no nothing of hard work, ingenuity and sacrifice.  They are born to be peons or drones suckling on the taxpayers teat their entire sad little lives occasionally surfacing to rail at those ‘rich b*stards’ that dare make more money than them and provide employment and tax revenue, and to provide propaganda to ensure the Union/Public Service/Socialist ALP is re-elected ensuring their continued fat cat PS salaries.

    • Andrew says:

      11:38am | 11/06/10

      Yeah Harriet right on, lets take everything back and get the Greens to run the mining game. Peanuts like you are what politicians like Rudd depend on.

      Labor is the politics of envy and avarice.

    • Nicki says:

      12:28pm | 11/06/10

      What anger,I saw some rented crowd all dressed and supplied with posters made by advertising company.
      Just pay the tax or p,,,. off.

    • Keith says:

      04:22pm | 11/06/10

      Yes… Harriet… Lets make mining companies return mining leases *rolls eyes* People who think “oh lets take away their mining lease and give it to someone else” are rather naive.

      Tell me who has the money to pay for these projects? You? Your uncle Bob? Your neighbour down the street? You need at least $100million per year to run ONE decent mine site. If you have the ability to have access that kind of money, then good luck to you.

      Unfortunately, this world doesn’t have a lot of rich mining magnates who would be interested in Australia if this tax is introduced. Why? Because they know it’s easier and more profitable to mine else where.

      So you think an billionaire or multi-millionaire can buy up a mining company? Rather naive there too. Most of these other rich people out there are specialised in their fields of expertise and can generate a larger rate of return (ROR) elsewhere rather than getting taxed on 6% ROR in the mining industry.

      The only people who are willing to buy up the mines will be China who don’t really care about taxes because they can afford it. Be careful of what you wish for.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      05:01pm | 12/06/10

      Willy K,

      What a sad and boorish little man you are. To be so presumptuous and vexatious in your sentiment without first qualifying your credentials. For all we know you could be the eternal sponge living off munificent parents, having never worked a day in your life.

      People of “your ilk” wouldn’t know the first thing about a hard days work for a fair day’s pay because mummy and daddy have always provided for you.

      How do you like that for a generalization?

    • Max Power says:

      10:44am | 11/06/10

      We wouldn’t need this Super Profit Tax if successive Govts, including this incompetent lot didn’t sell of our resource sector to foreigners.
      I would like to see a graph comparing the loss of revenue over the last 10 years with the sale of our resource sector to foreigners
      This Govt has approved the sale of up to 80% of some our resource companies to foreign investors.
      Pretty simple, don’t sell off our resource sector to foreign investors and the profits stay here, as opposed to heading overseas. 
      The Australian resource sector should be bought back, so that 100% of our resource companies are 100% Australian owned and 100% of the profit stays in Australia, no Super Profit Tax required.
      Instead this Govt, sells off more of our resource sector, then whinges when their cut of the profits decrease,  so to make up for the fac,t they want to introduce a Super Profit Tax.
      It is the Govt’s policy of selling off our resource sector that has got us into this mess, not the “greed” of the mining companies like rudd is trying to sell it.
      Stop selling off our country to the highest bidder and start putting Australia and Australian’s first.

    • pc says:

      11:09am | 11/06/10

      Stop the Presses. Hold the front page. Newslimited discovers “Mining Oligarchs dont want to pay more tax”

      Lucky you guys pointed that out to us. Otherwise we wouldnt have noticed Ruperts glee that no longer is he the only oligarch attacked for exercising execessive and unaccountable influence over an industry. BP and Tony “I’ll get Harry Potter to fix it” Haywood are doing a great job of proving the market Could fix problems it creates its just that it would rather not.

      Clive “Bring me Solo and the Wookie” Palmer, Gina “People would still like me if I didnt pay them” Rhineheart and Andrew “Why wont anyone call me twiggy?” Forest have rented their own peoples movement. Sure theres more cash than people, more ads than arguements but theres not much else for them to do. They cant turn to Tony Abbott cuz hes just as unpopular.

      This doesnt mean the super profits tax is unpopular or unwise. Its been popular for the last twenty years and while the mining oligarchs and the coaltion will create confusion. Confusion isnt opposition. According to the government the super profits tax will assist us investing in our future.

      According to “Why wont anyone call me Twiggy” the super profits tax means many, often contradictory, consequences. “Its a step to nationalisation. Its a step to communism. Its a despotic tax, a flawed tax, tax bludgeoning, a surprise attack. Mining companies like his will move offshore, mining companies like his will pay LESS tax, Australian taxpayers will pay more tax, still it will cut off investment, overseas it will makes us unpopular, a laughingstock and applauded.” all at the same time.

      But, of course, “Why wont anyone call me Twiggy” then claims, “We want to pay our fair share of tax.”

      Andrew was sad, not just because no one would call him twiggy but because he felt as if the public had to decide between his ‘pitch’ and Ken Henry’s ‘pitch on economics’.

      Dont be sad Twiggy, we dont have to rely on either of your predictive powers. I just asked a Norwegian friend of mine how theres was going. They’ve had a super profits tax since the 60’s and its doing great. Norway has the worlds second largest sovereign wealth fund worth $435 billion and this hasnt sent their economy to the swamp. Norway has a budget surplus of 9%. AND it gives 1% of its gross national income in overseas aid.

    • P Kruger says:

      01:01pm | 11/06/10

      The Norwegian Petroleum industry is nationalised you twit!

      The tax won’t hurt the rich it will hurt the blokes and women out on the mines and all the trickle down industry and town businesses.

      You lot just don’t understand economics.

    • thinktank says:

      01:07pm | 11/06/10

      You called him Twiggy at the end there.

    • Anjuli says:

      12:26pm | 11/06/10

      We need people who have the capitol if there were none where would all the workers be on ,centre link if there was enough to go around.People like Twiggy are necessary,  beside making it happen he gives back to the WA especially the Aboriginal community . I think people who knock ,it is all about the Tall Poppy Syndrome and envy.

    • Steve_of_Cornubia says:

      12:54pm | 11/06/10

      This whole ridiculous debacle is of Rudd’s doing. Almost everyone - the mining companies included - believe the taxation of mining could be designed in a better way. The problem is, when Rudd saw his popularity on the wane and crticism of his broken promiss mounting, he launched an ill-conceived, deliberately conforontational and highly political stunt that had only one purpose - to save his neck.

      Had he gone about this differently, by first consulting with the mining industry in detail and at length, before announcing the new scheme, he’d have succeeded. After all, let’s not forget that this idea came out of the Henry Review, which Rudd had in his hands for months before he launched his ambush on miners.

      On top of this, Rudd has cynically tried to spin this trainwreck of a policy as a ‘class war’ between honest, hardworking families and super-rich, greedy mining barons, and just in case that doesn’t work, he pointed out that ‘our’ resources are being pillaged by foreigners. Rudd is prepared to set Aussie against Aussie and fire up negative narionalism, just to protect his own position.

    • John A Neve says:

      01:42pm | 11/06/10

      Steve,

      I am not going to argue the rights or wrongs of this proposed tax.
      But I’ll ask you a question; if the mining companies don’t pay, who do you think will?

    • dovif says:

      03:20pm | 11/06/10

      John A Neve

      Perhaps a government can spend its money it already has from 30% tax on Mining super profits it already earns more competantly

      For example, the school hall building program, $4 billion cost overblown, massive “management fee” aka super profits paid to the builders

      Or the fail insulation scheme that was rorted

      maybe the miilion spend on the internet filter, which slows down the internet

      Maybe the incrediblly poorly thoughtout grocery choice

      Maybe not declaring a national panic, when the ALP loses support, and allocating 32 million to an advertising campaign

      just some small way on reducing incompetency in government

    • John A Neve says:

      03:47pm | 11/06/10

      Dovif,
      That’s no answer, the countries in debt remember. Now come on Dovif surely either you or Steve could answer a simple question, you both seem to know every thing else about running our government!!

    • Eye4anEye says:

      06:24pm | 14/06/10

      We all pay John, I believe thats the answer your seeking - and so we should everyone should contribute to paying of the debt the current government has landed us in.

      I find picking on any one industry or group (one for now anyway) abhorant. I always find it odd that socialists are all about sharing the wealth but when it comes to paying their fair share they are suddenly happy to point to those better off (more succesful) and scream take it all from them take it all from them.

    • Kevin Rennie says:

      01:01pm | 11/06/10

      These days everything seems connected. Recently Ivanhoe Mines/Rio Tinto forced the Mongolian government to drop their Windfalls Tax for the go-ahead on the Oyu Tolgoi mega mine. http://tiny.cc/m9c5x

      It must be galloping globalisation. There has been a lot of talk about resource taxes creating a sovereign risk. That’s the risk that government actions pose for mining ventures. The real risk may well be to sovereign States and their ability to stand up for their long-term national interests.

    • Harriet says:

      01:32pm | 11/06/10

      Go Kevin, nothing like a bit of real reporting on the issue.Its a shame that investigative reporting is not done by journalists in australia.

    • MH says:

      08:49pm | 11/06/10

      That is an astonishing take on what actually happened in Mongolia.  The reality is somewhat different.  The Mongolian government introduced a windfall profits tax.  The global investment community, which had been interested in Mongolia, simply decided it was no longer worth the risk and took its money elsewhere.  The Mongolian government (which, by the way, switches more often than a Kevin Rudd opinion) rescinded the windfall profits tax.  The investment community returned.  Everybody is happy.  Including the Mongolian government and people, who get to share in the benefits. 

      I’m not quite sure how you draw support for the RSPT from the Mongolian experience.  Seems a particularly cogent argument against the RSPT to me.

    • Super=Pay Cut says:

      01:20pm | 11/06/10

      I’m confused by everyone’s excitement over the proposed increase to compulsory super. 12% instead of 9% sounds great on paper… but my contract states that any increase to super will not change my overall pay ie. instead my employer will reduce my take-home pay.
      Don’t everyone’s contracts have the same proviso?
      Sure I want more super - but I dont want, nor do I deserve, an effective govt enforced pay cut.

    • pc says:

      01:45pm | 11/06/10

      Hi P Kruger,

      “The Norwegian Petroleum industry is nationalised! The tax won’t hurt the rich it will hurt the blokes and women out on the mines and all the trickle down industry and town businesses.You lot just don’t understand economics.”

      Well except it didn’t hurt the blokes and women in Norway did it PK? I noticed that ‘you lot just don’t understand the economy’ is a constant refrain of Mining Oligarchs, I thought it may have been a prelude to an explanation but of course it wasn’t.

      That’s because its not that difficult to understand. Mining profits have increased exponentially over the course of this boom. Iron Ore for example is up 900% and yet mining oligarchs pay less tax than they were. Mining companies wont leave. The minerals are here. The boom however will not last. Either the commodities prices will drop or the commodities will run out. Both are obviously going to happen one day. When that happens I’d like to have something to show for it. Well something more than a whole in the ground.

      Hi Thinktank - so a person from a thinktank that needs jokes explained to them. Whodathunkit. (Next time Ill put Tee Hee there for you)

    • P Kruger says:

      02:51pm | 11/06/10

      The Petroleum industry is owned by the Norwegian government!!!  Don’t you get it?

      It does NOT rely on private investors to pay for exploration (which is does bugger all of anyway). 

      In Australia: Increase the tax, decrease returns, decrease investors, decrease mines, decrease jobs, decrease money flow, decrease company and personal tax base.

      Basic economics that you just refuse to get.  The Norway situation is NOTHING like Australias!

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      02:43pm | 11/06/10

      For god’s sake, the whining poor little frigging billionaires.  Give us a break you fools.

      Tax law is written and imposed by the central government of the country, why should billionaire mining moguls who don’t own the goods they dig up be consulted?

      Are the media in this country all stupid?

      Howard was kicked out for serfchoices that the mining moguls supported and said they would all go broke if serf choices was dismantled.

      You are all barking mad.

    • Willy K says:

      03:59pm | 11/06/10

      Written and authorised by K Marx, Siberia.

    • luke09 says:

      04:51pm | 11/06/10

      Woof Woof!  cheese

    • Robert Smissen , rural SA says:

      04:58pm | 11/06/10

      Why would you consult the miners you ask? ? Why indeed, possibly because you want them to take risks & INVEST money in Oz

    • Robert Smissen , rural SA says:

      12:06am | 12/06/10

      Marilyn was the last sentence written whilst you were looking in the mirror? ?

    • Tom says:

      03:22pm | 11/06/10

      Greg you are full of crap. I was at the Press Club address, Rudd performed superbly and I have to say that the questions from the journalists were pathetic and as a result you didn’t lay a glove on the man. The questions from the mining execs were even worse (Andrew Forrest’s rant was absolutely cringeworthy), and were superbly countered and deflected by the PM.

      Your incorrect assumption that the tax is paying for a return to surplus is perhaps evidence of the standard of journalism over here in the West. The tax has three distinct objectives:

      1. Increased super
      2. Decreased company tax
      3. Infrastructure

      No more no less. If the tax doesn’t go through, we don’t get these benefits plain and simple., it has nothing to do with the budget’s bottom line and was not written into this year’s Federal budget.

    • Saskia says:

      03:58pm | 11/06/10

      Yeah!... you tell ‘em Kev!

    • Just Sayin' says:

      05:58pm | 11/06/10

      If you decrease the company tax rate and pay for it with PART of a brand new company tax, it’s hardly a decrease in company tax.

    • pc says:

      03:54pm | 11/06/10

      Hi P Kruger

      “The Petroleum industry is owned by the Norwegian government!!!  Don’t you get it?It does NOT rely on private investors to pay for exploration (which is does bugger all of anyway). In Australia: Increase the tax, decrease returns, decrease investors, decrease mines, decrease jobs, decrease money flow, decrease company and personal tax base.Basic economics that you just refuse to get.  The Norway situation is NOTHING like Australias!”

      Sorry I keep repeating your posts. Its just difficult to remember exactly what you said. Its somewhat light on facts. But heavy on breathing. Good on you PK.

      So its not that different to Norways, the Australian Government under the proposed Super Tax Policy actually takes on some of the risk. Now that could mean that australian taxpayers would have to fork out for unprofitable ventures but as all the profitable ventures far outweigh the unprofitable we will still be very much in the black. Im not exactly sure what it is I dont get PK. I know I dont get why your incapable of just admitting there is no economic reason to oppose the super profits tax. There are only reasons of personal greed. Somehow I dont think many Aystralians will find that persuasive.

    • Glen says:

      10:31pm | 11/06/10

      IT is very simple for someone that lives in WA, Krudd is shafting us on the GST, Krudd is shafting us on the RSPT, Krudd has betrayed Australia on every issue from parasitic boat/plane people to the insulation and BER disasters.  There is not a single person that I have spoken to here that thinks highly of Krudd and his incompetent labor ministers.  It doesn’t matter what spin the media from the east or Krudd’s pet spin-merchants put on it there is a growing loathing of labor here and they will pay at election time.

    • John A neve says:

      12:57pm | 12/06/10

      Glen,

      I do not know what your problem is? But there is not a scrap of truth in your post. Please substantiate your claims?

    • Eye4anEye says:

      06:52pm | 14/06/10

      Here you go John GST breakdown:

          NSW   VIC   QLD   WA
      2009-10   0.93186   0.91875   0.91556   0.78485
      2010-11   0.95205   0.93995   0.91322   0.68298
      2011-12   0.98015   0.93954   0.86766   0.66499
      2011-13   0.98838   0.95888   0.83349   0.66171
      2013-14   0.98976   0.95817   0.84082   0.67891
        SA   TAS   ACT   NT
      2009-10   1.24724   1.6204   1.27051   5.25073
      2010-11   1.28497   1.62091   1.15295   5.07383
      2011-12   1.29451   1.61873   1.14351   5.23592
      2011-13   1.29262   1.63261   1.17525   5.16175
      2013-14   1.28367   1.60214   1.15943   4.97868

      this shows return to the states per $1 in GST paid to federal coffers. (sorry I had to split it up like that but limited formating available here). @ under 80 (and getting lower) cents in the dollar coming back it looks like WA is getting the shaft to me.

      source: http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/bp3/html/bp3_general_revenue.htm

    • John A Neve says:

      07:53pm | 15/06/10

      Eye4anEye,

      I don’t doubt your figures but didn’t the Howard government introduce the GST?
      Wasm’t it the Howard gonernmet that worked out the states reimburesment formula?
      If I am correct, what has it to do with Rudd?

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:19pm | 11/06/10

      LOL, Mining Companies pwn Australian Government. Mining tax epic fail. No future for Australia. So sad.

    • tim says:

      08:03am | 13/06/10

      Get used to stories like this people. It makes my blood boil.

      http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chile-mining-to-benefit-from-australia-tax-changes-2010-06-12

      I’ll summarize it for you all:

      Chile’s Mining Minister, speaking on the RSPT:
      “The situation in Australia is a tremendous opportunity for Chile if we can offer the mining sector stability and tranquility. Let them know that our tax schemes are stable over time,” Golborne told reporters at the Ministry on Friday

      Australia must compete for every dollar of mining investment. Don’t think it won’t go elsewhere…because it will.

    • Luke says:

      12:09pm | 13/06/10

      I just can’t believe that this government would be so stupid… that it would…
      announce this tax and NOT expect this to happen…
      I mean, how thick can you get?

    • Christian Real says:

      01:27pm | 13/06/10

      In the Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2010 1.41pm
      ‘Xstrata preparing work at ‘shelved’ Ernest Henry project, say minister’
      “Xstrata has been accused of misleading Australians over the impact of the proposed super-profits tax after signing a contract for work on a project the company said had been shelved.”
      “The mining giant has signed a $3.4 million mining services contract with another company to manage a copper trailings facility at its Ernest Henry copper mine in Queensland.”
      “The contract was signed last week on the same day the Anglo-Swiss company said it was suspending operations at the mine because of the impact of the resource super - profits tax (RSPT).”

      This Story from News.com.au:
      ‘Resource super profits tax critic Clive Palmer ‘exaggerated’ threat to projects.’ June 07, 2010 @ 2.29PM
      One of the most vocal critics of the Rudd Government’s proposed resource super profits tax has admitted he exaggerated the possible consequences.”
      “Mining magnate Clive Palmer said in May he would cancel two projects in Western Australia’s Pilbara region, which would have employed 5000 people, because of the levy.”
      ‘The executive chairman of Mineralogy said one of those projects would employ 3000 people and generate about $2 billion a year in exports.”
      “But he has now told the ABC he may have exaggerated.”

    • tim says:

      07:54pm | 13/06/10

      Palmer might be bullshitting but the Chilean mining minister certainly aint…and you can bet the rest of Sth America and Africa are sending thankyou cards to Rudd as there are plent of investment dollars coming there way… I am angry..really angry.

    • MH says:

      06:31pm | 14/06/10

      The arguments over the RSPT can be broadly categorised as social / moral and economic.  The debate on the latter front is ongoing but frankly Kev & Wayne are kidding themselves if they think they haven’t lost it already - aside from Ostrich Ken and a handful of pure academia economists, every banker, accountant, financier, investor, money manager, financial adviser, economist and mildly commercially-literate student around the world realises that.  Because it really is very simple.  If you materially increase the tax on an industry you materially reduce its profits.  Unless that industry operates in a closed economy or one in which redeployment of capital is impossible (which is not the case here), the industry inevitably contracts if more can be made elsewhere (which it can).  For Australia that means fewer projects, less expansion, less growth and fewer jobs.  And that’s before we even begin talking about the effect an impaired sovereign risk rating has on the broader Australian economy (if you believe Ken, that effect is zero; if you ask any member of the international investment community, the answer is resoundingly different - and let’s face it, it’s the external view of a country that determines its sovereign risk rating, not the internal one). 

      But let’s leave the economic arguments to one side.  You can still win the overall debate if your social / moral argument is so compelling that it justifies the negative economic consequences.  And that is where I really do scratch my head.  Because there is nothing compelling about it.  At what point did the resources suddenly become “ours” and every one in this land have an inalienable right to a bit of the bounty to which they contributed precisely nothing?  What is it that fundamentally changed on 1 May this year?  Up to that point, mining companies paid company tax like everyone else.  In many cases, far more.  In recognition of the depletable nature of resources, they also paid royalties for the right to extract them.  That seems rather fair to me.  Sure you might tinker around the edges and have some debate over what precisely the royalty rate should be.  But suddenly, overnight, it wasn’t nearly enough.  What they’d been paying for decades, and what was comparable with other regimes around the world, didn’t cut it any more.  We wanted 40% more.  Nay, we deserved 40% more.  Suddenly, every man, woman and child had the right to put a greasy palm out for more and the government had a duty to make sure we knew it.  And somehow the greedy miners, their greedier shareholders, their even greedier financiers and everyone else who had actually invested time, risk capital and labour to develop these resources, were no longer allowed to enjoy the fruits of their efforts.  Which I thought was a fairly fundamental principle in a democratic, capitalist society.  Particularly one so enamoured of the ‘fair go’.

      I knew that somewhere, in a dark recess of my mind, there was a nice little fable illustrating the relevant moral principle but it wasn’t until today that I finally remembered: the story of the little red hen.  You remember, the one who asks, who will help me plant this seed?  Here’s a reminder:

      http://oaks.nvg.org/fta.html

      Seems to me that we, at the bidding of our government, just want to eat the bread.

    • Press says:

      07:31am | 15/06/10

      C’mon.  If you had a case, you’d have made it without the slather of loaded words. Spin, that’s all this is. More bloody spin.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

RT @gregprichard: The Victorian Sports Minister has just sent the New Zealand Prime Minister a commiserative email. #stateoforigin

Anthony Sharwood

@VanillathunderV fair comeback. But seriously, if that was a try then I'll book my skiing in Queensland this year

Anthony Sharwood

@BrettS69 the loveliest thing about post-origin is the sledges from gloating qlders #ratherbeagoodloserthanapoorwinner

Anthony Sharwood

That is the video referee howler to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers #stateoforigin

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

Lying on a cold table in an unfamiliar place and undergoing a core biopsy was probably one of the most…

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

Red alert, ladies. Making jokes about your ability at work is not funny particularly at board level.…

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

Punishing the baddies is only fun in the movies. In real life it’s messy, expensive, and fraught…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

242 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter