You couldn’t invent Clive Palmer. Well that’s not quite true, you could invent Clive Palmer, but you’d be told to go back and come up with something that was less of a caricature for a mining boss.

One of these men is Clive Palmer, the other a caricature of a greedy capitalist, spot the difference. Photo: Lyndon Mechielsen Illustration:  Sturt Krygsman

The Queensland mining magnate billionaire is quickly becoming the chief vioce of industry opposition to the Government’s Resource Super Profits Tax, and the Government love it. 

Palmer is an easy target for the Government, epitomising every stereotype of a self-interested fat cat capitalist, a mere monocle and waistcoat away from being a cartoon character. As one Labor strategist said of Palmer “he’s our Joe McDonald.”

That’s a reference to the Coalition’s 2007 election ads, featuring the Western Australian CFMEU official who became the touch stone of the Coalition’s attempt to stoke fears of a militant union revival in Australia.

It didn’t work, but its ability to crystallize and stream everything people feared and disliked about unions through a single individual, is the kind of thing begrudgingly respected by Labor ad men.

Kevin Rudd told caucus yesterday that he welcomed the fact Palmer was out there fighting the tax, labelling him the Opposition’s “pin-up boy” and calling the Tony Abbott a “mouthpiece” for Palmer.

It’s happened again today with Martin Ferguson saying “you can’t take Mr Palmer or the leader of the Opposition seriously”, continued attacks on Palmer’s real estate dealings, said Palmer was “throwing his weight around Australia” (not subtle) and accused the Coalition of “selling its soul” to Palmer.

Palmer’s appearance and demeanour maybe cheap easy pickings, but it’s only made possible by his continued ravings against the government and the mining tax.

He was in good form during a debate with AWU secretary Paul Howes at the national press club today.

Palmer compared Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan to Marx and Engels (having previously called them the Chavezs of Nambour) and basically painted the mining tax as the end of the Australian mining industry.

His position on negotiations for changes to the tax was this:

“Real negotiation is should we have a tax or shouldn’t we have a tax”.

So the man leading the charge for miners against the tax has a position on negotiations which is to scrap the tax all together.

Palmer makes no claim to be the official spokesman for miners, saying today: “when speaking about this tax I’m speaking for nobody else than myself as a citizen of Australia.” But the problem for miners is that thus far he is the loudest, and a major LNP donor to boot.

At the annual minerals council dinner tonight some of Mr Palmer’s colleagues could take him aside and ask him to take a step back in the debate, perhaps for a calmer, and ultimately more damaging, voice of a more Labor friendly figure like Twiggy Forrest.

Still I don’t much like the chances of that happening, you get the feeling that nobody tells Clive Palmer what to do.

95 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • H of SA says:

      04:05pm | 02/06/10

      Rudd wasting my taxpayer money on advertising for the tax. Mining companies wasting my shareholder money on advertising against the tax. It’s not been happy news for me this week.

    • TC says:

      04:28pm | 02/06/10

      Let’s not forget the government publically running down our major export brands as dishonest to all and sundry

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      05:58pm | 02/06/10

      H of SA   :  Cheer up H !  Clive’s intent would be to maximise the return on your shares at the end of the day.
      We would be very happy people in Queensland if we had ren more like Clive Palmer who are prepared to risk their money for our benefit as well as their own.  All the Labor idiots can see is a revenue sourse to tap and they refuse to see the potential jobs , expansion and exploration, existing state royalties , mining infrastructure and allied industry expansion.
      Just remember , the A.L.P. in W.A. had no qualms at accepting large sums from Clive Palmer to fund their campaigning.  What a bunch of hypocrites. !

    • persephone says:

      06:23pm | 02/06/10

      H
      and then the miners will claim the cost of the ads back on tax…

    • Scot says:

      06:56pm | 02/06/10

      Yes and all the Australia state treasurers where in HK a week ago with their begging bowels. Guess how much credibility they had. 250 where to attend the conference and midway through the conference most had walked out. HK has USD34B invested in Australia and what was alarming was NSW has AUD$40B in at 5-5% bond rate and growing

    • Scot says:

      07:01pm | 02/06/10

      Hello, Twiggy Forest does not like Rudd and Swan either. He has already stated that they are both liars and dropped yet another bad egg on the table with no thought. They did not discuss this with Henry or the Miners, they both had a brain wave. and we know what Labor Brain Waves are doing to us all.

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      07:20pm | 02/06/10

      Scott 6:56pm:  ‘begging bowels’ ...  I love it, I haven’t laughed that much in ages.  Do you write instructions for imported Chinese goods?

    • Alice says:

      07:54pm | 02/06/10

      H of SA
      You will pay twice. The miners will claim their advertising expenses at tax time.
      It is obscenely odd that the mining industry can claim ignorance about the new tax. Afterall, they submitted the RSPT to the Henry review in 2008. They know more tax has to be paid they just don’t want to be the ones to pay it, instead suggesting through their submission that government could broaden the GST base and raise the GST rate from 10%.
      And people are supporting the mining magnates?

    • DC says:

      09:25pm | 02/06/10

      @Wayne Fehlhaber:

      You are kidding, aren’t you?  Clive Palmer doesn’t care about anyone else except Clive Palmer.  The people he employs are a means to an end - they are there to make him rich.

      How many people did Clive Palmer sack last year to save a few dollars?

    • Chris P says:

      01:14am | 03/06/10

      I’ve thought this from the start - Clive Palmer definitely is a hilarious caricature. Labor is lucky to have him as their opposition!

      I ‘ve just been reading a new site addressing the mining tax at http://www.miningtaxfacts.com.au It references many news articles, definitely worth a read!

    • Scot says:

      02:06am | 03/06/10

      No Nigel, great that you picked up the thread, thank you. Am sure they where all flushed by the time they arrived back in Australia LOL.

    • Scot says:

      02:11am | 03/06/10

      Alice, No they did not. They asked the Mining Council and did not ask the miners. Henry and his people thought they were being smart. An by the way Rudd and Swan did not listen to EXACTLY what Henry said they took sound bytes and used them. Hens the fiasco we now have of wasted people time and money yet again. Sound familiar POOR outcomes. Crisis managemrnt, spot fires, al started by Rudd and Swan.

    • Christian Real says:

      06:04am | 03/06/10

      Wayne Fehlhaber
      It appears that it must be an overcrowded bed, with all the Liberal party climbing into bed with the mining conglomerates,who in return bankroll and fill the Liberal party coffers with generous donations.
      And it would appear also Wayne, that the current Prime Minister is only at loggerheads with the miners,simply because he cannot be brought by them, like another political party appears to have been.

    • Christian Real says:

      07:08am | 03/06/10

      Wayne Fehlhaber
      This extract is from “The Australian”, May 26,2010 9.55am
      Story Headline: “20 leading economists, academics back Rudd’s resources super-profit tax’
      “A group of 20 leading academics and economists has backed the Rudd governments’s mining tax,saying the sector should hand over more of its profits.”
      From the Sydney Morning Herald. May 31,2010 a story written by Clancy Yeates, the headlines read: “Coal miners to make $80b despite resources rent tax.”
      “Coal miners stand to rake in earnings of more than $80 billion in the first five years of the resources “super profits” tax,despite having their returns trimmed by 15 per cent”
      Then from “The Daily Telegraph”, a story written by Andrew Carswell and Alison Rehn, June 03, 2010 @ 12Am, the story headlines, “BER bungle saved Australian economy”
      “It Has been condemned as failure but the Rudd Government’s Building the Education Revolution may have saved the Australian economy from posting a negative quarter of growth.”
      “Official figures released yesterday showed the Australian economy grew by a mere 0.5 per cent in the first three months of 2010,helped stubstantially by an 11.6 per cent increase in Federal Government spending.”
      Then last but not least , a story concerning Tony Abbott, in The Sydney Morning Herald, written by Malcolm Knox, May 15, 2010, the headlines read:
      “Abbott’s big donor under fire from angry Greens.”
      “The Greens have called for an audit into one of Tony abbott’s major political donors for breaches of electoral laws going back to 2001.”
      “The federal Opposition Leader has received donations from the Warringah club, a fund-raising body based in brookvale,which has failed to meet disclosure requirements and has been subject to an inquiry by the Crown solicitor’s office in N.S.W.”

    • Christian Real says:

      08:04am | 03/06/10

      Wayne Fehlhaber
      A news item in thewest.com.au
      “I donate to both parties:Palmer”
      “Billionaire mining magnate Clive Palmer say he donates the same amount to both Liberal and National parties in WA”
      Mr Palmer was Australia’s largest political donor last financial year,handing over more than $850,000 mostly to the conservative side of politics.”

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      08:14am | 03/06/10

      Wayne Fehlhaber says:05:58pm; there you go again…. large funds my @$$ I beleive the figures tabled in Parliment the other day was $25 000 to the ALP and $1 million to the liberals…. waffle….waffle…waffler… strikes again

    • Christian Real says:

      08:25am | 03/06/10

      Persephone
      It would appear that you are right, and that the miner’s will have the audacity to claim the cost of their advertisements back in tax.

    • Richard says:

      09:25am | 03/06/10

      Christian Real, your 20 academics and economists (read ” 20 keyboard jockeys with no real industry and business experiece”) have no credibility whatsoever! For some real unbiased and informed opining, how about the esteemed Terry McCrann from Herals Sun:
      “Up to a point, this is ‘politics as usual and even inevitable’. What makes it recklessly unacceptable is that it threatens real and serious damage to Australia and to every Australian. The tax itself has become almost secondary. The mining industry accepts the right for the government to impose some sort of RRT - or a real ‘super profits’ tax. Grudgingly at its still painful and possibly damaging simplest, just take the existing Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and extend it to all other resources projects. It’s the inability to trust the government and the prime minister, calculatedly putting pure - let me rephrase that, sole - political self-interest ahead of the national interest. Indeed being prepared to actively and/or stupidly trash the national interest.”  25/5/10


      That’s why yesterday’s clearly co-ordinated exercise by all the leading ministers to try to snow people with the claimed super-low tax rates paid by mining companies was like a case study of deception and spin within the overall Rudd deception and spin tax case study.”

    • AJ says:

      11:32am | 03/06/10

      I just wonder how many of the people decrying the mining industry for claiming the expenses of their ads back in tax actually have any knowledge of the taxation system.

      The industry will claim the ads are legitimate business expenses. for that they will receive a tax deduction. Its not free money, it just will be treated as a legitimate cost of operation, like paying salaries or renting equipment.

      The government will still receive tax income from the advertisers (newspapers and TV channels) who make a profit. Of course if Conroy keeps giving $250m free kicks to TV in an election year maybe they won’t pay any tax, who knows?

      In any event, the idea of “claiming the cost of the ads” back is BS. Get your facts straight.

    • James1 says:

      12:34pm | 03/06/10

      Seeing “esteemed” and “Herald Sun” in the same sentence made some of my brain leak out of my ears.  Please don’t do that again.

    • Christian Real says:

      01:33pm | 03/06/10

      Richard
      I was expecting to be attacked by radical liberals, and sunshine you didn’t disappoint me with your comments that attempts to dumb down what I have wriitten.
      Unlike you, I peruse most of the newspapers on line ,but then again if you did that it would be too much of a drain on your narrow-minded views.
      You call the academics and economists “keyboard Jockeys”, Richard you really shouldn’t talk about yourself like that, I am sure they are all much more professional and qualified , and be able to give more of an expert opinion that people like you would only ever dream about and envy.
      I

    • Drewboy says:

      04:12pm | 02/06/10

      It is appalling how the government attacks anybody who is successful. When has making a dollar been against the national interest or such a bad thing?

      Good on Clive Palmer for making a success of his business. He should be applauded not demonized.

      Shame on you Rudd, shame on you Swan. You are both poor excuses of leaders of this great nation.

    • James1 says:

      12:36pm | 03/06/10

      Still, Palmer comes across as pretty unpatriotic.  Palmer might be a good businessperson, but that does not make him a good Australian.  He would rather be Chinese than contribute more to our great country.

    • stevie says:

      04:13pm | 02/06/10

      Oh yes - he’s such an idiot as well having made all that money. Pity we couldn’t have some Government Ministers who had actually got some dirt under their fingers or had taken a risk or two with their own money. OWN money that is.

    • Rudy says:

      04:14pm | 02/06/10

      impossible, he is fat!

    • Gordon Akman says:

      04:16pm | 02/06/10

      Clive performed well at the national press club today. His biggest problem is his weight as he said himself in his opening statement. The issue here is politics is about a pathological commitment to lying to the masses and doing everything you can to smear your political opponents.

      I agree Clive Palmer is an easy target. However it is not for his rhetoric but much more so for his physical appearance. Being obese is why Kim Beazley was never elected PM and why Joe Hockey was not elected Liberal leader. We rightly associate fat people with being lazy and we question ‘If that bloke doesn’t even have the character to manage his own weight how can he manage a country?’  In Clive’s case as a wealthy mining magnate the political characterization of him also ties in with fat people being considered greedy.

    • Joan says:

      08:28pm | 02/06/10

      Yes, Palmer did well at Press Club.- the man showed he is intelligent , sharp, and on top of his subject, Howes at times was personally rude but it didn’t rattle Palmer - he got on with the facts. Palmer`s got more brains than Rudd, Swann .Henry and Howes put together- it was apparent at the Press Club and his financial success in mining confirms this- this type of success is not just luck - as Rudd and Co would have you believe- you don’t get Palmer`s success reading Cranky Bear and Fairy stories about pots of gold at end of rainbows

    • Robert Smissen , rural SA says:

      12:01am | 03/06/10

      Very true Joan, the harder Clive works the luckier he gets

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      08:19am | 03/06/10

      Your kidding right? Paul Howes has a much more intelligent argument against Clive’s rectoric of self indulgence

    • Joan says:

      11:15am | 03/06/10

      Howes gets paid by the workers, Palmer pays the workers- some who get up tp $100.000 per year as truck drivers.

    • Who says:

      04:18pm | 02/06/10

      No amount of photos of Twiggy or Gina cuddling little Aboriginal children in the desert will erase the image above from my head, funny stuff.

    • luke09 says:

      04:21pm | 02/06/10

      Labor pollies don’t like success, fullstop…..........................

    • H of SA says:

      04:24pm | 02/06/10

      judging by what they did to Turnbull, neither do Liberals

    • Gordon Akman says:

      04:41pm | 02/06/10

      Ha! Too true. Not only do both political parties and the masses not like successful people but successful people bring out unbelievable anger and hatred in them.

    • Matt says:

      05:12pm | 02/06/10

      H of SA and GA9- What giving him a plum seat then electing him leader within a term… dastards!

    • Christian Real says:

      08:21am | 03/06/10

      Luke09
      It isn’t that Labor pollies doesn’t like success, it is just the over-inflated billionaires that appear to try to run the Country and dictate to the government that makes them disliked.
      It appears that billionaire business people appear to think that money can buy everything,including an opposition party, going by generous donations that they receive from these billionaires.
      It also appears that one thing that these wealthy billionaires can’t buy is the current government, and that is why all the miner’s noses are put out of joint.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      04:33pm | 02/06/10

      To be taken with a pinch of salt no?

      hear•say (hîr’s?’) 
      n.
      2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

    • TC says:

      04:51pm | 02/06/10

      Salt or not, it would appear that Twiggy isnt going to remain all that silent on the issue

    • DC says:

      09:27pm | 02/06/10

      @TC:

      Right - do you think that would stand up in court?  Nope.

      Hell, I once heard Clive Palmer say that he was really a communist and he wanted a threesome with Hugo Chavez and Julia Gillard.

      Or did I?

    • TC says:

      12:39am | 03/06/10

      @ DC
      Am I in court? Are you?

      I wonder what you actually do hear but thanks for missing the point

    • TheRealDave says:

      04:35pm | 02/06/10

      So whats wrong with taxing miners more anyway? So they make Eleventy two billion dollars profit a year rather than Eleventy six billion. Its not as if they are losing any money here.

      I say roll on the SuperTax and expanding it to include ALL businesses making more than a Billion dollars a year in profits.

      If Rio or BHP want to be greedy and close mines - simple, capitalism dictates that someone else will come along and say ‘hey, I’ll start a mine there, I’ll still make Eleventy Billion in profit even with the Super Tax’.

      If it makes a profit someone will throw money at it. See, Capitalism works both ways Clive.

      Give something back to the people of this country who are making you those profits.

    • Eye4anEye says:

      04:51pm | 02/06/10

      They won’t throw money at it if it makes more or safer profits investing elsewhere or in something else and thats my worry.

      I support the mining tax but in a more logical and sustainable form ie like the current petroleum tax 40% on profits over 11% and not applicable to existing projects (since I find it offensive to change the rules mid way through the game).

      As for Clive I think he makes a good target for cheap political point scoring due to his appearance and probably because he’s outspoken - which is sad because he makes some good points.

      Wish there was less tall poppey syndrome in this country.

    • persephone says:

      06:28pm | 02/06/10

      Eye4

      Because the plan refunds royalties (up to 6%) and includes a drop of 2% in company tax, the profit margin at which the proposed tax increases the miners’s tax bill is about 12% (compared to now).

      Also remember that the mining industry currently benefits from tax breaks not available to other industries, such as the diesel subsidy.

    • Eye4anEye says:

      08:12pm | 02/06/10

      @ Pers

      What are your thoughts on changing the tax regime on existing projects? as I see it thats where soverign risk becomes involved in a big way when you change conditions on projects that were modelled under a different tax regime.

    • persephone says:

      08:16am | 03/06/10

      Eye

      er.. it happens all the time.

      On the logic being used, we’d never have any tax increases for any industry at any time.

      I could argue that (were the government to raise income taxes tomorrow) they are taxing (retrospectively) the investment I made in my education and in updating my professional skills, which I expected would pay off in increased take home pay.

      It’s a silly argument.

      It’s even sillier when you consider that part of the justification for the tax is the windfall aspect of the present mining company profits.

      When they invested in the present projects, mining companies did not expect to make the amount of profit they are at present. Therefore their investment decisions were made in expectation of a much lower rate of return.

      They were quite happy to invest under those circumstances, judging that the returns were worth the money.

    • nosthow says:

      04:39pm | 02/06/10

      As a Labor voter i watched the NPC today Leo and thought both Howes and Palmer were both quite informative. I am sure the government will strike a deal with the Mining fraternity and all this ho ha will blow away. May not be as Rudd says till after the election though. Abbott is the boofhead with his head in the sand. Palmer may be big in stature but Abbott is small in Policy !

    • coldsnacks says:

      05:03pm | 02/06/10

      Somehow, I doubt it.

      When basic things, like the amount and when it sets are set in stone, as far as the gov’t is concerned, what’s left to negotiate?

    • N says:

      04:45pm | 02/06/10

      Mr Palmer sounds like a good unification symbol for those opposed to the mining tax, myself included. He epitomises those who work hard, invest well and make the world work for them, in stark contrast to those who feel that they’re entitled to something for nothing and too stupid to buy shares in these companies in the first place.

      A successful billionaire vs a hopeless government and spineless PM; no contest.

    • Bill says:

      04:46pm | 02/06/10

      The way they’ve been carrying on, I half expect the Government to start referring to “Clive Palmer, mining magnate, noted war criminal, child molester, and cause of cancer.”

    • Eye4anEye says:

      04:53pm | 02/06/10

      I suspect the Labor government will steer clear of any references to cancer in the foreseeable future given the currant advertising shenanigans smile

    • persephone says:

      06:32pm | 02/06/10

      Bill

      and why not? It’s not as if Palmer’s own language has been fair and reasoned.

    • Willy_K says:

      05:18pm | 02/06/10

      Also you may want to check Twiggy’s interview on Business Spectator - he ain’t a friend of this moronic tax or the ALP!

      No one in the mining industry and associates are.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      05:37pm | 02/06/10

      Anyone want to talk about lead poisoning, toxic spills, poisoned waters and soils?

    • Eye4anEye says:

      05:42pm | 02/06/10

      Not really it’s depressing - but you can’t blame politicians for the foul toxic emissions they make (they are kind of like cows).

    • Allan says:

      05:47pm | 02/06/10

      Not really, all this industry is required because there are 6.5 billion people on earth wanting to live the life style of the rich and famous or a BHP/ RIO plant operator.
      That therefore has evironmental costs that most people on earth are prepared to accept, right or wrong.

    • Eye4anEye says:

      06:23pm | 02/06/10

      Should clarify my earlier comment “Not really it’s depressing - but you can’t blame politicians for the foul toxic emissions they make (they are kind of like cows). ” I was refering to the politicians as the emitters, it was an attempt at humour that when I re-read sounded like I was making a serious submission on mining emissions.

      I will strive to make better more obvious jokes in the future wink

    • Super D says:

      05:48pm | 02/06/10

      I can’t remember a single individual ever being singled out for this sort of treatment in the national parliament.  The ALP has taken us to another new low.

    • Fred says:

      12:34pm | 03/06/10

      Surely you have to be taking the mickey. There have been quite a number of incidents from both sides where Parlimentary Privaledge has been completely abused to dredge someone into their cesspit. PP should be changed to allow the victims to sue for libel, and then lets see how far they go.

    • Anthony says:

      06:00pm | 02/06/10

      Imagine if Howard singled out a union leader in the work choices campaign in a simial fashion. I suspect the ALP will get the tax through but in the long run the tactics they have employed will bite them again and again. The ALP will be dependant on the unions more than ever and the politics of envy will be played across our tv’s for years to come, what a disappointment.

    • Pugilist says:

      06:12pm | 02/06/10

      The Government and their chief attack dogs (Tanner and Swan) seem to love ridiculing overweight people who oppose them (witness attacks on Hockey and Palmer). Swan was at it again today with a jibe at the Shadow Treasure regarding pies. Watch out Mat Preston!

    • persephone says:

      06:38pm | 02/06/10

      Some convenient truths omitted here.

      Firstly, Clive Palmer himself admitted fairly recently that the mining industry needed to give back more in tax to the community and nominated a figure of 40% as reasonable.

      Secondly, he is the major donor to the Queensland LNP, with his son running for the seat of Nudgee at the last State election (aged 18) and now, aged 20, has been preselected for the seat of Moreton.

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:58am | 03/06/10

      C’mon Perse you can do better than that. I am sure Labor pay you by the hour so stop rushing your comments. I am happy to accept your assertion, would just love some, what is called? Oh yeah, Proof. I know you have the time to find it.

    • Bek says:

      09:40pm | 02/06/10

      Did anyone else notice that Clive was struggling to catch his breath and looked like he was about to have a heart attack at any moment during his opening speech today?

    • Sam Chowder says:

      09:58pm | 02/06/10

      Rich Clive is an easy target for cheap jibes but if I was even just a tiny bit as successful as him, I wouldn’t stop eating either

    • Bob H says:

      12:52pm | 03/06/10

      I would rather Clive eat more pies than watch Kev and his gifted team throw the cash away - at least we can see where the money is going with Clive

    • True Blue says:

      10:12pm | 02/06/10

      Palmer’s performance today - as usual was appalling.  He offered no substance whatever to any of the assertions he has been making since his initial foray into this debate.  He certainly let the cat out of the bag in respect of what the mining industry regards as negotiation- cancel the tax.  As Australians we should be out in the streets cheering on the government to implement this tax as soon as possible so that we - the owners of the resources - get a fair return on the finite resources we own.  The Fiberals, as usual, have no intention in defending the national interest.  we Australians better do it for ourselves.

    • watchingwithinterest says:

      11:09pm | 02/06/10

      The state owns the resources and levy’s royalties, which by the way are charged on what they dig up.  This line that we all own these resources and therefore should benefit from the sale of them is rubbish.  They are worth nothing in the ground.  Those that take the risk should enjoy the reward.  If we want to get more from them, auction the lease or increase the royalties, don’t tax the profit of those prepared to take the risks.  If Australians want a piece of the action, buy some shares.

    • TC says:

      12:45am | 03/06/10

      More taxes are good right?

    • MenarefromMars says:

      08:11am | 03/06/10

      TC:

      Everything is good in moderation. Most things a lethal in excess.

    • persephone says:

      08:26am | 03/06/10

      watty

      and the Federal government has the right to tax the income earnt on exploiting these resources.

      The Feds are not charging anyone for the minerals in the ground - quite the opposite, they are refunding the royalties paid to the miners.

      This is because (as I heard a number of mining industry leaders say in interviews yesterday) miners themselves want the regime to move from taxing royalties to taxing income.

      There is huge pressure on individual states to reduce royalties. They use deals on royalties to attract mining activity from one state to another, a fairly pointless exercise when you’re talking about the good of one country, but one which means that states end up cutting their noses to spite their faces.

      This has meant that royalties have been kept artificially low, and that the states then don’t have the money they need to invest in the infrastructure mining areas need.

      The Feds replacing this system will mean that a mine in WA and a mine in SA pay the same taxes, relative to profit, levelling the playing field. It will also mean that there is a pool of money to provide the infrastrucuture these states need as a result of mining activities.

      Conversely, taxing this industry in this way will allow the government to lower company taxes for other industries (by 2%), something unlikely to happen otherwise (whatever the complection of the government, as it’s very low on Abbott’s ‘to do’ list) for several years.

      So it raises a tax on an industry which is earning more profits than it expected to lower taxes on other industries who aren’t in the same happy position.

      And it lowers taxes for the rest of us, by allowing the write off of income from interest rates (not huge, but good for self funded retirees and the like).

    • Adam Diver says:

      12:02pm | 03/06/10

      Translation for Persephone -

      1. We don’t need state goverments or competition between states.
      2. Australians will no longer get thier “fair share” from our resources. They will now be free to dig up.

    • persephone says:

      06:09pm | 03/06/10

      Translation - especially for Adam—

      1. We do need state governments, but states fighting each other for industries is not an overall benefit for Australia.

      A lot of sense fighting for a company to come from, say, the USA to Australia. No sense taxpayers’ dollars being spent fighting for an industry to move from WA to SA.

      2. Australians will get a fairer return on their resources. It is far more sensible - as the mining council admitted, and as all sensible economists agree - to tax the money made not the material mined.

      No economist (that I’m aware of) is arguing that royalties should be retained. The mining companies aren’t, either.

    • Paul says:

      10:37pm | 02/06/10

      That’s a bit rich, Clive Palmer seems to be saying the mining industry can’t afford the tax. In that case I think he should redistribute some of his own wealth - he’s worth close to $4 billion and his wealth ballooned by a staggering $500m just recently (7th on the BRW Rich 200). Poor Clive and his destitute mining industry.

      They’re getting money out of Australian ground, so they should at least share a little more of it around the country. The mining industry would do well to be a bit leaner as would Clive.

    • MenarefromMars says:

      11:25pm | 02/06/10

      Although its great to comment on the miners and the government, who actually understands the proposed super tax?

      Correct me if I’m wrong but….

      The way it sounds to me is that the government wants to nationalise the mining companies by taking a 40% stake in each company. This is very different to a tax that kicks in when profits hit a particular threshold.

      When the miners claim they can’t afford it, they are probably right. They can afford more tax, just not 40% government ownership.

    • persephone says:

      08:40am | 03/06/10

      OK, I will.

      The government is ‘partnering’ companies to some extent by giving them assistance (through return of royalties and other tax breaks) in the exploration and development stages.

      Once a mine is up and running, however, the government will increase taxes once the profits on the investment reaches 6%.

      This is better than it sounds, as the proposal lowers the tax rate for companies by 2% and returns royalties (worth @ 6%), meaning an effective tax cut of up to 8% on current rates until they reach the taxable profit level.

      In practice, this means that mining companies will be paying less in taxes than they do at present until they reach a 12% profit, twice the bond average.

      Even when they reach a profit margin of 50%, they’ll only be paying about 18% more tax than they do at present.

      http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=economicnotes/2010/018.htm&pageID=000&min=wms&Year;=&DocType=4

      This is not nationalisation of the industry by any means. The miners still make the decisions about what money they invest where; they still manage the mines. They get to keep some of the profits (even on a 50% profit regime, they’re taking home about 24% of that).

      Under nationalisation, the government would own the mines, make the decisions and keep all the profits.

      And don’t forget that mining companies presently get tax write offs not available to other industries, such as a rebate on diesel.

    • MenarefromMars says:

      12:10pm | 03/06/10

      Persephone:

      “partnering” is translated to “40% joint-venture” which although not exactly nationalisation is not far off.

      Please check the statement from Lateline on 28/05/10:
      http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2912736.htm

      And again why not just increase the tax rate for rather than have a extremely complex scheme?

    • persephone says:

      09:32pm | 03/06/10

      Because this isn’t just about raising taxes, or indeed about raising money to pay for a slew of (generally) business friendly programs.

      It’s much cleverer than that.

      Firstly, by effectively subsidising the exploration and development phase of the industry, it encourages the discovery and opening of new mines.

      Secondly, by taxing profits and not volumes, it allows mines to operate much longer than their present ‘use by’ date - a mine which, at present, is returning a certain level of profit isn’t economic, due to royalties. Remove royalties and it may return enough to keep it open - both preserving jobs and fully exploiting the available resource.

      Thirdly, by making mining slightly less profitable (not much, just a bit) it encourages investors to consider putting their money elsewhere, rather than everyone chucking dollars in the same basket. Mines won’t last forever, and we need growth in other areas as well - it slows down the two speed economy a little.

      Slowing mining down a little also means that we preserve our minerals longer. If we still have minerals when everyone else has exhausted theirs, we will make more money out of them. Thus, slowing the industry preserves the resource and means that the country will benefit from it for longer.

      Recent modelling - Credit Suisse, I think, if that’s the right name - points out that, had this tax been in operation a few years ago, miners would have paid less in tax. Only in the last few years have they been making such handsome profits that the tax proposed is a negative for them.

      This bears out the idea that mines at the start and end of their profitable lives will be better off under this taxation structure, and only mines which are booming - and booming beyond the original expectations of the investors - will be adversely affected (and even then will still be making bags of money).

      A simple tax on profits - without returning royalties, or reducing company tax, or encouraging exploration and development - just raises money and nothing else.

      This is far more sophistocated and thus more beneficial.

    • MenarefromMars says:

      08:07am | 04/06/10

      Persephone:

      I think this scheme is much to cleverer for its own good.

      Firstly, give me an example where this scheme would encourage opening of new mines. If you were a prospective miner and the government was going to become a 40% silent partner would you do it?

      “Secondly, taxing profits not volumes”?
      Does this imply that state based royalties will be abolished? Last time I checked most companies are taxed on profits not volumes. Is this just another federal attack on state revenues?

      “Thirdly, Encouraging investors to put their money elsewhere.”
      Oh dear. You can’t see a problem there?

      “we need growth in other areas as well”, sorry but basic economic principles would suggest you need increased demand in that “other area” before growth is possible.  Increased supply will not help.

      Credit Suisse did some modelling, do you have a link? Because I am interested to see whether the statement: “the miners would have paid less in tax” takes into account the fact that 40% of company would have been government owned, thus the miners may have paid less tax - but would have made 40% less of total profit.

      “A simple tax”, is what tax reform is all about.

      This is the exact opposite. Its a can of worms.

    • Robert Smissen , rural SA says:

      12:05am | 03/06/10

      Who would you like to run Oz? ? ? A successful businessman like Clive or some whiney twit from QLD who has to ask his missus for pocket money? ? ?

    • persephone says:

      09:35pm | 03/06/10

      A few guys from South Africa, the US and China?
      Or the democratically elected government of Australia?

    • persephone says:

      08:43am | 03/06/10

      Robert

      noone is stopping Clive Palmer from running for Parliament.

      That would be more open and transparent than what is happening at present, when he is buying - one can argue, given the situation in QLD, has already bought - political influence by his donations to the LNP.

      And he’s running his son for Federal parliament, which is surely the next best thing.

      Thus, if people want Clive Palmer to run the country, they have the opportunity to make that feeling known.

    • Andrew says:

      02:52pm | 03/06/10

      And the Labor Party funded by unions, run by unions and staffed by unionist is any different?

      Stop spreading class warfare lies. Perhaps you should read the Lib Party foundation speech by Sir Robert Menzies. You don’t understand or choose to ignore that neither party has ever been the party of big business. Big business gives equally to both Lib and Lab. To them government is merely a transitory policy machine which must be factored into their economic modelling in order to assess competitive forces in their particular industry.

      Lib’s try to represent small to medium enterprises who are not strong enough or without the financial wherewithal to withstand Labor’s unionist capital destroying mediocrity policies.

      Oh, and get this straight, the MINERS gave $100,000 worth of donations to the ALP in 2009 and DAH DAH DAH DUM….. $0.00 to the Libs. Publicise that!

    • persephone says:

      09:38pm | 03/06/10

      Andrew

      last year, Clive Palmer donated $800,000 to the Liberals.

      This was the largest donation received from one individual by any party.

      This isn’t a lie. It isn’t a lie that his son is running for Parliament, either.

      I’m not into class warfare, I’m simply stating facts.

    • Robert Smissen , rural SA says:

      10:49pm | 03/06/10

      Thanks Andrew

    • John Lucas says:

      09:24am | 03/06/10

      How many people on the labour front bench have started and manged a successful business?

    • OldGirl says:

      11:09am | 03/06/10

      The mining companies are running a scare campaign, older Australian’s have seen this all before. While the young and gullible listen, it will get us nowhere fast. Just vote on how you feel, don’t listen to anyone, base your voting on your gut instinct.If you feel the tax is wrong then don’t vote for it, if you feel its right then show your support with your vote.

    • Adam Diver says:

      12:04pm | 03/06/10

      Way to promote your generation OldGirl. “don’t listen to anyone” I assume includes you as well smile

    • stephen says:

      12:39pm | 03/06/10

      If Mr. Palmer ends up out of work because of the Super-Tax, he should apply for work with BP.
      They’re miners, too, you know.

    • Bleeding Heart says:

      11:56pm | 03/06/10

      I am not the smartest pecil in the pack but here goes.
      The govt is saying that 6% is a fair margin and that any money made over this sum will be veiwed at a super profit taxed at 40%
      Now, regardless of inputs(royalties etc) if I lay my money dopwn I will be hit with 40% on my overall profit yet the govt is going to guarantee that it will offer 40% of losses., So if my mine fails to make a profit & I shut the doors in business speak, the govt is going to credit me 40%?
      ll those that support this rubbish cant be serious if you think for a minute that govt will stand by its word, wether they be ALP or LIB. All it will take it is 2-3 projects to fall over and the bill to be presented to the taxpayer and the sh** will really hit the fan.
      It just aint going to happen people and the miners know it.
      So we are left with a 40% hit on the profit above 6% of a project that may make money subject to the variances & vagaries of the world markets.
      Interesting to note an article by Gary Gray, member for Brand, in the West today trying to mount a defensible argument for the tax by saying that “we are willing to talk & negotiate”
      Why wasnt there negotiation before the tax was put forward, Hawke, to his credit, negotiated & discussed the PRT withe major players before that tax was implemented and then it wasnt retrospective.
      These days it seems more important to announce first and negotiate after the class warfare has begun.
      True, most mining companies are aware that they will be required to pay more tax yet I can see their point when they say that the contribution that they have made to Oz is being vastly devalued when held in comparison to other industries particularly those in Oil & Gas.
      People do tend to focus on the big 2 or 3 yet fail to remember or know that that there at approx 250 mining companies in OZ mining anything between iron ore, gold, tin, lead, nickel, sand, rock etc etc etc.
      Sure we will all get our fair share, the qquestion will remain as to what our fair share will be, now and into the future.
      A dog of a policy now and a dog in the future.

    • Laurie says:

      08:24am | 04/06/10

      Oh well if the mining reduces and the need for staff in the area reduces then our government can cut immigration levels and we might find equilibrium again.  In the meantime we have skills shortages, fears of wage growth driving inflation (which will further drive interest rates up ... a real cost to me) and record levels of immigration creating no end of problems in our cities that future generations will still be paying for.

      The only sustainable future is leaving resources in the ground and maintaining population and any legislation that might lead to that is good for mine.

    • sneakers says:

      10:59am | 04/06/10

      “He was in good form during a debate with AWU secretary Paul Howes at the national press club today. “

      What? He was spinning like a dervish! I fell off the couch I was so dizzy!

    • Fergus says:

      10:15pm | 02/02/12

      Now I really understand what it means to throw your weight around

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

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

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter