Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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

Legends of 2017

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!
Mar 24, 2005
6,703
6,168
Melbourne
Don't forget the lobbyists.

Ex politicians should either:
a) be banned from taking on any roles that have any involvement with interacting with the federal government, or
b) forgo their overly generous superannuation payments, or
c) only be able to access their superannuation at the same age as the general population

We’ve been told over and over that the reason pollies can get their super straight away is because it’s hard for them to get jobs after leaving politics. What a crock of *smile* :mad:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
24,150
19,618
Ex politicians should either:
a) be banned from taking on any roles that have any involvement with interacting with the federal government, or
b) forgo their overly generous superannuation payments, or
c) only be able to access their superannuation at the same age as the general population

We’ve been told over and over that the reason lollies can get their super straight away is because it’s hard for them to get jobs after leaving politics. What a crock of *smile* :mad:
But, but..................................but.
 

Althom

Tiger Superstar
Jul 23, 2016
1,175
1,027
Ex politicians should either:
a) be banned from taking on any roles that have any involvement with interacting with the federal government, or
b) forgo their overly generous superannuation payments, or
c) only be able to access their superannuation at the same age as the general population

We’ve been told over and over that the reason lollies can get their super straight away is because it’s hard for them to get jobs after leaving politics. What a crock of *smile* :mad:
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?????????????
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
17,661
11,699
I give up, why?
i dont know, my only guess they are so beholden to their ideology that fossil fuels are needed, and renewables arent reliable, that they ingnore all the evidence. (or beholden to their donors and future employers- but ill be generous.)

probably a bit like how many, including some on here, always mention subsidies to renewables, for tend to ignore the subsidies that coal and gas get.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,523
17,875
Melbourne
Because it brings in export $ and keeps Australians at work?

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
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

Althom

Tiger Superstar
Jul 23, 2016
1,175
1,027
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
Yeah based on that we could shutdown our entire resources industry plus our agricultural industry and rely on the sales of lattes to keep the wolf from the door.
You first.
Let me know how "paradise" works out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
27,017
14,792
Yeah based on that we could shutdown our entire resources industry and rely on the sales of lattes to keep the wolf from the door.
You first.

Yeah, those mining engineers don't need a university education, you can just pluck them from the trees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigerlove

Tiger Legend
Aug 9, 2014
16,601
7,003
Yeah based on that we could shutdown our entire resources industry plus our agricultural industry and rely on the sales of lattes to keep the wolf from the door.
You first.
Let me know how "paradise" works out.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Althom

Tiger Superstar
Jul 23, 2016
1,175
1,027
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
24,150
19,618
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
9,185
3,597
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
24,150
19,618
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
17,850
21,180
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 Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,523
17,875
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
16,601
7,003
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 Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,523
17,875
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:

QG-EmploymentIndustryStatistics-002.png


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