Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

Althom

Tiger Matchwinner
Jul 23, 2016
998
884
That's the real issue. Australia is rich due to its immense resources. It's fine to say get rid of fossil fuels and replace with renewable energy but we have to, as a country, be prepared to take a massive hit on our quality of life, at least until we find something to replace the lost revenue. I don't think people in Australia are prepared to accept that as a whole. Politically it's not a simple solution.
I can guarantee you that the bleating that would occur from most Australians, if they had to make do in a country that no longer relied on its mineral resources, would far outweigh the current noise from those who think a complete switchover to renewables can happen in the next 30-50 years.
It's also very easy for European nations and the US to point at us for using so much coal and gas to generate power when they've had nuclear power to prop up their their baseload for decades.
We've been hamstrung by gutless politicians and a "green" lobby that gets far too much attention paid to it and isn't really green.
 
Last edited:

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
13,972
5,263
Interesting, look forward to the next instalment "Ex Rudd Gilard ministers in The same noble profession"
Conroys gig as head of Responsible Wagering Australia would be hard to toss.
There'd be a few, but no where near as many, big businesses don't see the benefit of left leaning red-raggers.
 

22nd Man

Tiger Legend
Aug 29, 2011
6,296
1,572
Essex Heights
There'd be a few, but no where near as many, big businesses don't see the benefit of left leaning red-raggers.
They learn the script pretty quick when the cheque book thumps on the table.
And more fairly there were some solid pro business Labour ministers...John Button was one.
Went onto company boards after wards. Not sure if posters think that is a sell out like becoming a lobbyist? (It's directors after all who hire and pay lobbyists)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
13,972
5,263
They learn the script pretty quick when the cheque book thumps on the table.
And more fairly there were some solid pro business Labour ministers...John Button was one.
Went onto company boards after wards. Not sure if posters think that is a sell out like becoming a lobbyist? (It's directors after all who hire and pay lobbyists)
Martin Ferguson is one who responded to hearing the "cheque book", very disappointing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
8,691
4,653
I read an article in the paper the other day about this, apparently 6,000 jobs, which, to be brutally honest, is sweet FA.

At the same time they refuse to pay job keeper to universities who actually do employ a lot of people.

The jobs argument is bollocks.

As is the argument that we make money out of this. The mining royalties Australia charges have been called dumping many times because they are so low, the large foreign owned mining companies don't pay much tax, neither do the local ones.

We need to get real about the contribution mining makes to Australia, not many jobs (increasing automation), FA tax, extremely low royalties. Yes it makes the balance of payments look better but we need some decent analysis of the actual benefit of mining to our economy.

DS

I'd say maybe do your own research.

In 2019, Woodside by themselves employed 3,834 employees (vast majority in Australia) and paid US$0.5bn (effective taxation rate in Australia was 29%) in tax on top of royalties (which are a bit harder to find as are stated in cost of sales).

Maybe you need to review some of the financial statements of the large Aussie companies.

Personally for me the royalty system is well past a review and should be reviewed in order to provide more return back to the Aussie people, but to claim that we get very little from it, is ridiculous. State royalties are fine but the PRRT is quite frankly worth nothing.

LNG also IMO has a part to play in the future global energy policy that we need. Coal absolutely needs top be phased out, and I'm pro renewables (mainly around solar and tidal power) but there needs to be an ongoing source of power generation to deal with fluctuations in renewables which absolutely exist. Its going to be a long long time until we can become totally independent from fossil fuels so we need to push towards the cleaner ones as replacement for the dirtier ones whilst also expanding investments in renewables. My personal view is rooftop solar is the biggest generator we have towards energy security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,206
4,765
Melbourne
That's the real issue. Australia is rich due to its immense resources. It's fine to say get rid of fossil fuels and replace with renewable energy but we have to, as a country, be prepared to take a massive hit on our quality of life, at least until we find something to replace the lost revenue. I don't think people in Australia are prepared to accept that as a whole. Politically it's not a simple solution.

So, let's leave it until the last minute so that the impact is greatest, sounds like a plan.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigerlove

Tiger Legend
Aug 9, 2014
13,593
3,036
So, let's leave it until the last minute so that the impact is greatest, sounds like a plan.

DS
??? unusual response. Where did I suggest that's a good plan? I'm only pointing out why it's not going to happen quickly due to a disincentive politically to do so.. Politically sensitive is the topic of reducing GDP, loss of jobs and weakening wealth.

This is a good article to get a true insight into the importance of the mining and services sector to Australian employment and export revenue and investment.

https://www.industry.gov.au/data-an...sources-sector-significance-and-opportunities
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,206
4,765
Melbourne
Not sure it is a disincentive to not support industries where a lot of people are employed, I think it has a lot more to do with how much influence the industry has.

As for that article, it claims 258,000 people employed in mining in 2018. No idea where they get that from, still, Dept of Industry so I suppose they are blowing their own horn.

But, if jobs are an issue why do they keep screwing education, far more jobs in education as shown by the figures on employment by industry on the parliament website:



The Arts, even after the COVID impact which was particularly bad for the arts, employs more people.

Mining employs about 1.5% of the workforce so not huge.

I know there is also employment to support mining, but the same can be said for other industries. With FIFO being a fair part of the mining workforce they also don't contribute as much to wherever they are located. Plus, they leave a mess behind.

Mining is a highly automated business these days and we all know how Qatar makes multiple times out royalties from exported gas even though they export a similar amount.

So, I am not convinced of the supposed huge contribution to Australia that mining apparently makes.

In any case, mining things like coal and gas is not a great long term prospect, fact is the world is moving away from fossil fuels. Time to invest in the future not the past.

DS
 

scottyturnerscurse

Tiger Champion
Apr 29, 2006
4,590
905
Interesting, look forward to the next instalment "Ex Rudd Gilard ministers in The same noble profession"
Conroys gig as head of Responsible Wagering Australia would be hard to toss.

Imagine being a former minister, under the old, ridiculously generous super scheme who decides after leaving parliament to shill for big gambling. Conroy should be ashamed of himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
12,999
3,342
Camberwell
Agreed
Harold Holt was probably the last one who didn't go into a massively paid private sector job after leaving the Prime Ministership.
Or did he?????????????
I agree with the sentiment about ex politicians and there are plenty of examples of noses in the trough but I am struggling to remember an ex prime minister who did this . Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Turnbull? I stand to be corrected but is there an example?
 

22nd Man

Tiger Legend
Aug 29, 2011
6,296
1,572
Essex Heights
I agree with the sentiment about ex politicians and there are plenty of examples of noses in the trough but I am struggling to remember an ex prime minister who did this . Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Turnbull? I stand to be corrected but is there an example?
Think you are right...first 5 were in their late 50 s or 60s when they were rolled by the electors or their own party and pretty much retired to write their memoirs. Rudd on global campaign for relevance funded by his wife's fortune, Gilard acedemic, Turnbull funded by his own fortune.
 

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
12,999
3,342
Camberwell
Think you are right...first 5 were in their late 50 s or 60s when they were rolled by the electors or their own party and pretty much retired to write their memoirs. Rudd on global campaign for relevance funded by his wife's fortune, Gilard acedemic, Turnbull funded by his own fortune.
yes. Fraser was on the "campaign for relevance" as well from memory. I think he ran for the head of CHOGM which had some relevance in those days and was involved in landmine campaigns as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
13,972
5,263
The enquiry into the Australia Post Cartier watches brouhaha will not be made public, Morrison from marketing wants his faux outrage to be forgotten.
It's funny how the enquiry is set up to conclude, and then kept hush hush just before Christmas.

What a despicable, hypocritical Government.

Communications Minister Paul Fletcher signalled on Monday the report would kept secret, despite indicating last month that it would be made public.

 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 3 users

tigerlove

Tiger Legend
Aug 9, 2014
13,593
3,036
Not sure it is a disincentive to not support industries where a lot of people are employed, I think it has a lot more to do with how much influence the industry has.

As for that article, it claims 258,000 people employed in mining in 2018. No idea where they get that from, still, Dept of Industry so I suppose they are blowing their own horn.

But, if jobs are an issue why do they keep screwing education, far more jobs in education as shown by the figures on employment by industry on the parliament website:



The Arts, even after the COVID impact which was particularly bad for the arts, employs more people.

Mining employs about 1.5% of the workforce so not huge.

I know there is also employment to support mining, but the same can be said for other industries. With FIFO being a fair part of the mining workforce they also don't contribute as much to wherever they are located. Plus, they leave a mess behind.

Mining is a highly automated business these days and we all know how Qatar makes multiple times out royalties from exported gas even though they export a similar amount.

So, I am not convinced of the supposed huge contribution to Australia that mining apparently makes.

In any case, mining things like coal and gas is not a great long term prospect, fact is the world is moving away from fossil fuels. Time to invest in the future not the past.

DS

That's incorrect regarding mining. If you include all services that are based around the mining industry the link I gave you states this:

”When mining services are included, the broader sector accounts for more than 1 million employees.”

You are vastly underestimating the value to Australia not just in employment but in export dollar and investment into Australia.

Again I'm not agreeing with the strategy, I'm just explaining the complexity politically. We have 4 year terms, governments are thrown out at a whim. Our system is not designed to encourage long-term decisions, it's all about the now if you want to be re-elected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

22nd Man

Tiger Legend
Aug 29, 2011
6,296
1,572
Essex Heights
yes. Fraser was on the "campaign for relevance" as well from memory. I think he ran for the head of CHOGM which had some relevance in those days and was involved in landmine campaigns as well.
And ended up quitting the Liberals... But as we don't have local royals ex PMs can open doors for causes as well as cash.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,206
4,765
Melbourne
Yes, mining does have support services around it which also create employment.

But the contrast I gave was education. Are there no support services around education providing jobs? Well, I think there are a hell of a lot of support services around education providing jobs Housing for international students. All the services students need. All the services universities, colleges and schools need.

The fact is mining is increasingly mechanised, is not the huge employer it is made out to be, and all industries have services which create second order employment.

Why is mining always singled out as needing support over and above other industries? Why the special treatment? Why such low royalties in Australia? Why do we support an industry where so many of the big players are pumping their profits overseas?

DS
 

Althom

Tiger Matchwinner
Jul 23, 2016
998
884
Think you are right...first 5 were in their late 50 s or 60s when they were rolled by the electors or their own party and pretty much retired to write their memoirs. Rudd on global campaign for relevance funded by his wife's fortune, Gilard acedemic, Turnbull funded by his own fortune.
Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Turnbull all employed on and earning plenty on the public speaking circuit and for their "contributions" in the media.
Gillard is on several boards as is Turnbull.
All earning an absolute fortune whilst being paid +$200k + expenses by the taxpayer.
 
Last edited: