tip off

MRRT: a spectacular failure of leadership by all

It’s there now, in black and white, half-passed into law, a clutch of Mineral Resource Rent Tax bills, passed in the House of Reps early this morning, or late last night, whichever usage takes your fancy.

It’s appropriate, really, that the policy journey that began one Sunday morning in May 2010 ends in the dead of night, for what has been after carbon pricing the most comprehensive failure of leadership in Australia for a generation.

It began with the Henry Tax Review release, when the press gallery and assorted commentators and industry types were locked up in Canberra on a Sunday to be given the long-awaited review and the government’s response. The review turned out to be a lengthy, forensic and comprehensive analysis of our tax and transfer system and the solutions to its flaws. The government’s response was none of those things. It did, however, include one decent proposal, to shift to a profits-based approach to resource royalties.

It was a good Labor reform, and sound from an economic point of view: while it was not yet apparent, everyone knew the returning resources boom was going to hammer other sectors of the economy such as manufacturing. The RSPT was an excellent response to an emerging multispeed economy.

That was about it for excellence, however. Despite having held onto the report for months, Labor didn’t bother consulting with the mining industry, or convincing the electorate of the problem that the tax was designed to solve. When the mining industry ramped up a campaign to oppose the tax, the government appeared helpless to defend itself. Those backbenchers who wanted to sell the tax in their electorates struggled to get high-quality material to counter attack with.

Things got worse once Labor rolled Kevin Rudd. The new leadership hastily negotiated a new deal with the biggest miners that amounted to a surrender to some of the world’s biggest multinationals, with BHP, Rio Tinto and Xstrata dictating how much tax they’d be prepared to pay.

Labor insisted at a time that, with much less revenue from the MRRT, it would cut its cloth accordingly and cut back the associated corporate tax cuts and infrastructure spending, while leaving the compulsory superannuation rise intact. Nearly a year and a half later, we know the MRRT won ‘t raise enough revenue to cover all the expenditure measures linked to it. And it will raise even less after the deal with Andrew Wilkie.

It’s been the worst political performance by a government in support of good policy since Peter Reith managed to make the MUA look like heroes during the waterfront dispute.

The failures of leadership didn’t stop there. Corporate Australia shares much of the blame. It stood by, virtually silent, as the foreign-controlled mining industry ramped up its massive scare campaign against the tax. When the government eventually caved in, some in the business sector had the extraordinary hide to complain about the smaller corporate tax cut that resulted from it. Only the superannuation industry spoke up strongly, supporting the tax and its associated superannuation reforms. John Brogden, in particular, showed courage to speak out as head of IFSA, when his erstwhile Liberal colleagues were roaring on opposition to the RSPT.

The mining industry, of course, conducted a campaign based entirely on deceit and misrepresentation. Rare was the mining executive who opened their mouth except to spew out lies about the apocalyptic impact of the tax, even as their share prices surged ahead of the rest of the stock market and ahead of miners in other countries — in some cases even as they themselves bought up mining stocks. One invented a mine he insisted would be closed down. “Sovereign risk” was casually bandied around. African countries such as Zambia were held up by the mining industry as exemplars for Australia, even as mining companies systematically ripped off those countries. At that stage, the only thing piling up faster than the miners’ profits was their b-llshit.

There’s plenty more responsibility to spread around. News Ltd enthusiastically joined the campaign against the tax for its own partisan purposes, another multinational joining Rio, BHP and the Swiss tax dodgers of Xstrata in an attempt to destroy Labor. It wasn’t the only one. The Fin Review and Business Spectator also campaigned heavily against the tax. Other outlets ran the garbage claims of the mining industry — invariably sourced from “independent modelling” — uncritically.

Mining royalty increases by conservative state governments in WA and NSW failed to elicit a fraction of the coverage or opprobrium directed at the federal government’s proposals, either from the media or from the federal Coalition, which gleefully rehashed and embellished the lies of the mining industry.

The government, the opposition, much of the media and corporate Australia all spectacularly failed, in different ways and for different reasons, their basic obligations to the public interest.

The result is that we’ll miss much of the opportunity presented by the resources boom, the non-minerals sector will have a heavier load to bear, and the budget is further from structural balance. And, possibly as bad, high-quality economic debate has been damaged. There’s now a template for aggrieved industries to attempt to block economic reform. Every rent seeker, shonk and spiv in the country now threatens an advertising campaign against the government if they feel their interests are threatened. Politicians everywhere will have heeded the lesson.

And business and the media then have the hide to complain about the lack of economic reform.

34
  • 1
    Jimmy
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    The argument about a “template for aggrieved industries to attempt to block economic reform” is a tad overstated, the govt has withstood indusrty campaigns on other issues, if anything it will provide a template to govt’s to build popular support first then announce the plan.

    As for the MRRT and Carbon Tax being comprehensive failures I prefer to take the attitude (similar to the Greens) that they may not be perfect but are better than nothing and can be improved in the future.

  • 2
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    I agree with Jimmy on this one. The Labor Government withstood a virulent, deceitful and prominent campaign against plain tobacco packaging and looks to do the same on pokie limits.

  • 3
    Jim Reiher
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    The mining companies (the so called, “little ones”) were officially complaining on AM this morning. When their key spokesperson was asked point blank: “Will any of your members go under, [close down, go broke] because of this new tax?” the answer was an evasive “we’ll have to wait and see wont we”. In other words… the mining companies are a little annoyed that the growth of their profits wont be as big as they might otherwise be… but grow they will.

    It is such a noisy ploy: scream loud and scream often and some people will think you are hurting.

    The other ridiculous thing said was that “it will force the operations to be offshore”. What the? They cant get our resources without working ONshore. And they really dont want to get their resources elsewhere, where the govts are less stable, where massive bribes have to be paid, where there is much less stability for “long term certainty and planning” [now isnt that a common phrase these days!]….

    Australia needs to refind its sense of “community” and “the common good”. Selfish billionaires and their multinational companies should not dictate who pays how much tax.

  • 4
    GeeWizz
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    The mining tax bungle was a class A stuff up from day one.

    All Labor had to do was use the precedent of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax as a benchmark, charging 40% tax on profits over 11% as with the PRRT.

    Instead Labor wanted to play it’s little class warfare games, calling the tax a “Super Profits Tax”(Marxist theory, look it up) and charging 40% on profits over a measily 5%pa returns which you can get better returns leaving your money in the bank.

    So because of the original stuff up it was watered down much more than the PRRT, but then we had Adolf Wilkie…. good old Wilkie loves one rule for other electorates and one for his own. He wanted the Carbon Tax ammended so his Zinc Mine wasn’t affected and now he wants tinkering with the mining tax so his beloved Zinc Mine doesn’t get hit with the Carbon Tax. This bloke is an A-Grade scumbag if ever you saw one…. he wants to enforce laws on everyone else and exclude his own electorate from the consquences.

  • 5
    Joe Magill
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    You are correct to spread the blame widely for a less than perfect outcome, but it is an advance on where we were. I think the two real failures were that of the government (Rudd’s) to release the tax report immediately so that it could be discussed in general terms, and the actions of the industry groups to align themselves with the miners and thus against the interests of the rest of their membership. In SA we had a campaign by BusinessSA against the mining tax when the bulk of their membership would have benefitted from the tax cuts and other tax benefits. (And they wonder why I am not a member!)

  • 6
    Fran Barlow
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Well said Bernard … There is plenty of blame to go around for this debacle.

    Mind you, the lion’s share of it must be slated home to the ALP who managed to butcher the implementation of a potentially election-winning policy (in 2013) by very poor management.

    Yes the press were feral, but it was clear they always would be. Announcing it after backing down on carbon pricing was utterly stupid.

    To use a football metaphor the Rudd regime had a strong first hald but ran down the clock instead of playing out the game and nearly conceded defeat with a shocking second half.

    It was a brilliant attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory which nearly worked.

    Luckily, the Greens and Indies have managed to salvage something from the self-inflicted wreckage of the ALP and its Sussex St spivs.

  • 7
    Jimmy
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Gee Wizz/TTH- Another prediction bites the dust with the passing of the MRRT. You would think that the laws of probability would have you getting something right in the last 18 months but alas no such luck.

  • 8
    Jackol
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    Geewizz (or truthy or whatever your name is)

    All Labor had to do was use the precedent of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax as a benchmark, charging 40% tax on profits over 11% as with the PRRT.

    While the MRRT is very similar to the PRRT, the RSPT was quite a different beast, so you’re comparing apples and oranges.

    The basic idea of the RSPT was that, due to the nature of mining being the process of extracting a commonly owned resource, the people should be part owners of the business of extracting the shared resource. ie the government, on behalf of the people, was to become 40% silent partners in all resource extraction projects.

    ie the 40% rate is simply the 40% “ownership” being paid their share of the profits. BUT partnership/ownership includes downside as well as upside, and that was where the RSPT was particularly special - the 40% partnership included covering 40% of losses, presumably primarily development/startup costs for the most part.

    The 6% threshold wasn’t about the definition of what was a “super profit”, it was really just a freebie to private investors during periods of marginal returns. So many column inches were devoted to arguing about what the weighted cost of capital was etc etc and how the treasurer didn’t understand it since he put the 6% threshold in - but the threshold has nothing to do with the cost of capital. The government could have saved itself a lot of grief by not including the threshold at all and by not calling it a “Super Profits” tax.

    Anyway, the RSPT isn’t happening (more’s the pity) for the many and varied reasons outlined by Bernard Keane above. I certainly agree with Joe Magill (and Bernard Keane) that the primary failure on the part of the government was the stupid way it sat on the Henry Review report when it could and should have been seeping into the public consciousness prior to releasing it on the same day they came out and said “the RSPT will be like THIS”. I can’t imagine who thought that was a good idea.

  • 9
    CHRISTOPHER DUNNE
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    I watch Jon Stewart regularly and love to laugh at the hopeless American system and its corrupt and inept politicians but then I read this and have to remind myself again that here is only different in minor ways.

    Just a cursory look at Europe and it’s a clean sweep; Western democracies are dysfunctional clubs of elected officials who do the bidding of big banks and global corporations.

    And if you want depressing, just turn on the radio and listen to that buffoon Barnyard and reach for the razor. The expression ‘white trash of Asia’ springs to mind, rich in most ways but so poor in the ones that matter.

    Our gene pool is pretty damn shallow if that’s the best we can do.

  • 10
    Oscar Jones
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    I disagree totally.

    With the combined weight of the disgraceful mining campaign aided by media interests who reported the mining commercial campaign as if it were news, and the total lack of proper journalistic investigation (apart from a few notable exceptions) Labor just were not in the race.

    How on earth could they possibly compete with that ?

    They should be congratulated for actually getting as policy through in the most fascist atmosphere Ive ever seen in my 60 years.

    And 30% can become 40% in time.

  • 11
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    I’m not quite convinced by comparisons with pokie limits and plain cigarette packaging, because they’re not taxes.

    A new tax needs to be accompanied by the immediate and complete abolition of an old one (or several), so that opponents of the new tax can be attacked as proponents of the old one. Rudd broke that rule with the RSPT and lost his job. Gillard broke it with the MRRT and the “carbon tax” and is in grave danger of losing hers.

    The rule has a corollary: that the old tax to be abolished must be big enough to ensure that the opposing team can’t credibly promise to get repeal the new tax without re-introducing the old one.

    This has a further corollary: if you want to introduce a new tax and get away with it, you need to THINK BIG.

    John Howard, though it pains me to say it, understood all that.

  • 12
    Oscar Jones
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    And could someone please tell the mining corps to cease those infuriating late night adverts with all those ‘Aussies” made good who sound like they are the only ones who contribute to this society.

    Funny how they can still fund multi -million dollar endless advertising campaigns while still crying poor.

  • 13
    Oscar Jones
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    I wish the mining corps would bugger off-shore to where ever fantasy land they they can exist and let the government nationalise all mines and Aussies share in 100% of profits.

  • 14
    GeeWizz
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    The basic idea of the RSPT was that, due to the nature of mining being the process of extracting a commonly owned resource, the people should be part owners of the business of extracting the shared resource. ie the government, on behalf of the people, was to become 40% silent partners in all resource extraction projects.”

    They already do, it’s called State Royalties.

    BTW, though I am not against a tax on miners, I have heard Gillard and people such as yourself say that the resources belong to the people of Australia. Therefore I was wondering when my cheque would be coming in the mail for my share?

  • 15
    GocomSys
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    It is good to see the mostly reasonable responses so far (TTH, SB, GEEWHIZZ excluded as usual).
    Agree with the sentiment, that the MRRT and Carbon Tax are a mere start and should be amended and enhanced in the future. The government after initial botch-ups in a toxic environment applied the “art of the possible” under Gillard. Well done.

  • 16
    Frank Campbell
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    The passing of the mining tax is but a prelude to the passing of the mining tax.

    No point stressing out. It’s headed for repeal and/or redundancy, as the mining balloon deflates…

  • 17
    Observation
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    When you have an endless pit of money to spend on advertising to maneuver public opinion, which can then be refunded to you by the government as a tax refund, and then you have your mates in the media provide more free propaganda and the government of the day is being hand cuffed by the opposition by demanding that limited money be spent on providing information on their point of view to the public……..what chance did it have. I think the government didn’t do too bad considering what was up against them.

    At least there is now a tool to tax the super profits more which I hope can be adjusted and amended to favor the Australian public and Australian mining companies at a later date.

  • 18
    fredex
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    This evening I passed through the room with the TV in it and heard the trialer for ABC News say “…the government comes clean on its secret deal …..”
    Lead item.
    So I check the ABC online site and find this:
    “Opposition Leader Tony Abbott described it as a secret deal done in the dead of night ….”.

    So how about we acknowledging that no matter how eloquent,persuasive, detailed whatever the government can or cannot be it is always pushing the proverbial brown stuff uphill faced with the antagonism of even a supposedly credible media news services like the ABC?
    Then there is the Ltd News noise machine.

  • 19
    Pedantic, Balwyn
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    Keane makes many good points in his article, however he fails to emphasise the role of the media in absolutely destroying the arguments in favour of the resources rent tax through misrepresentation, highly selective fact reporting and darn right lies.
    Yes, it can be argued that the Labor Government was a poor communicator, but when it is virtually impossible to get message broadcast to the public, including in Crikey, they were in a totally no-win situation.
    Congratulations to Ms Gillard; despite the forces mounted against you, you have succeeded in making the foreign miners, renting our resources, pay a bit more for the privilege. The projected income is inadequate, but when political outcomes not national interest are stacked against you you’ve done well.

  • 20
    AR
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    I would enjoy seeing some multinational take its mine off-shore. Apart from rewriting the laws of physics, how is that done? Please, please, try it. In the meantime, pay TAX, looking at you Twiggy.

  • 21
    GeeWizz
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    Still waiting for my “mining share” cheque from Gillard to come in the mail.

    It is my resources apparantly, not the Government’s or the mining companies so I will wait eagerly by the letter box for my cut.

  • 22
    Sean Doyle
    Posted Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    @GAVIN MOODIE: There’s a fair difference in the public perception of mining companies compared to tobacco and pokie merchants. The miners are pushing towards national hero status, being seen as saving Australia from the economic woes of Europe and the US (no matter how dubious the evidence may be, although as Keane sets out, evidence and mining companies aren’t always strongly linked).

    On the other hand, tobacco campaniles, at the risk of Godwinning myself, are seen as the worst examples of capitalism at work, producing a product with no social value that they know and deny kills their own customers and even non users. If it was invented today, tobacco would be made illegal like other drugs. Pokie companies aren’t far behind the tobacco companies in the public popularity stakes, ruining lives of not only their users but anyone unfortunate enough to be financially dependent on a pokie addict. For what should be reforms about as hard to sell as a beer in Kalgoolie, they really seem to make it look as though they are struggling every inch of the way. Part of this is due to the cave in on the RSPT, which made the government look like push overs more concerned about focus groups than policy. A government with strength wouldn’t have to stare down tobacco and pokie companies since these two social pariahs wouldn’t have tried the sob stories in the first place.

  • 23
    CML
    Posted Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 1:19 am | Permalink

    @ SEAN DOYLE - I think you are mistaken about the strength of support for the MRRT. Have seen several indicative polls on the net today (ABC/ Fairfax, etc) with around 65% support, and about the same numbers AGAINST repeal by the Mad Monk. Maybe the said tax has become a problem for the coalition?

    I also disagree with Bernard about all this “failure”. At least we have a tax, even if it is not perfect. Democracy is a pest! I heard on ABC Newsradio (in the middle of the night) that China has introduced a very similar tax on ALL minerals and whatever else they mine, just announced and introduced the same day!!! Apparently, nearly all the mines in China are in the west of the country and the people there are very poor. So all the tax will be given to the local authorities to improve the living standards of the people in the areas affected. It was also reported that the foreign companies didn’t like the idea much, but none offered to upstakes and move on. There is a moral to that story, I believe? Funny thing is, this news item has not been repeated at all during the day, that I’ve heard.

    If you listen to the mining companies, you could be forgiven for thinking that Australia is the only country with a MRRT. I know a young Canadian engineer who works in the oil industry in Alberta, and he told me they have had a 30% additional tax on all companies in that industry for many years. I’m sure there must be others?

  • 24
    Dogs breakfast
    Posted Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Yes Bernard, it is a piss poor shadow of the original proposal, which was put together by Henry and a bunch of really smart public servants.

    It was always politically tricky, but all good reform is. Rudd is single handedly the great villian here. He dumped the CPRS because he couldn’t find a spine apparently. Because he realised how weak he now looked, and his approval numbers were dropping, he decided to play hard ball on the mining tax rather than being a little bit consultative and a lot tough.

    If Rudd was a politician of any worth this would have been sold for what it was, the public getting a reasonable return from their resources. Rudd, front and centre, was the cause of this debacle. Gillard just made a hash of it because she had so many other fights to win. Sure she is culpable, but her involvement is secondary. Your article seems to miss the very source of the problem.

    Fact is, it is better than no tax at all, whatever else you argue.

    And geewhiz, give it up. Mineral Resources are communal property, not your property. You don’t get a cheque, you just pay less taxes.

    I’ll never understand the mindset of the troll.

    @ Fran Barlow - touche! @ CML - check out Norway’s oil tax regime - makes the original tax look like a giveaway in comparison, and yet the multinationals still decided that a substantial profit was better than no profit. Who would have guessed.

  • 25
    Posted Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    Sean Doyle and Gavin R. Putland

    I agree that there are substantial differences between the taxes and the smokes and pokies changes. One should add that the Opposition didn’t oppose tobacco plain packaging. As Howard has argued, Hawke and Keating’s changes were easier cos most weren’t opposed by the Opposition.

  • 26
    Jim Reiher
    Posted Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    Geewizz - waiting for a cheque? You must really hate Labor the way you talk… So cynical….

    Hey: did you complain about the Rudd big spend when he helped Australia avoid the Global recession? I bet you did… Let’s assume you did… he got us into big debt… he wasted so much money….

    I guess you sent back the $900 cheque you would have got back then - as a matter of consistency and principle… right? I mean, every Liberal voter who said the govt was wasting money, would have done that…. right?

    I have not met one yet, who did.

  • 27
    GeeWizz
    Posted Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    And geewhiz, give it up. Mineral Resources are communal property, not your property. You don’t get a cheque, you just pay less taxes. “

    Thats not happening though we are now paying 21 extra taxes under this incompetent Labor government and now they want to spend my mining tax share on sh1t I don’t care about like queue jumpers and the breathing tax.

    BTW in Alaska, the government mails out cheques to citizens for oil royalties. This is in stark contrast to our current government who will keep the royalties for themselves and keep jacking up taxes on the poor embattled Aussie tax payer. 21 new taxes and counting.

  • 28
    Posted Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    As another Crikey poster has demonstrated, Labor has not introduced 21 new taxes. Some of what you are counting as taxes are increases in the cost of services provided, some are temporary levies, some such as the student services fee are imposed on only a tiny fraction of the population, and others you count are yet to be introduce.

  • 29
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Gavin - And some didn’t exist at all.

    I think Suzanne Blake stated there were 22, could only name 18 and they quickly got whittled down to about 10 or 12 with most of them being fairly minor.

  • 30
    Ian
    Posted Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    It’s good to read informed comment; by Bernard and many of the commentators on his article.

    I take a somewhat different tack from most though as I have not studied the RSPT or any of the reports leading up to it or following from it so don’t know the detail.

    But I see how the mining corporations set out with all guns blazing to destroy the tax, as these same vested interests have done also with the anti carbon pollution legislation… and basically succeed and I understand fully the rise of the Occupy Movement and why Australians need to embrace it and to stick with it. Australia is but a step or two away of following the northern so-called democracies down the drain with only China standing in the way of that outcome. And the reason? The reason is that, like the governments of the north, ours have been co opted by corporate interests and show no sign of breaking lose.

  • 31
    Oscar Jones
    Posted Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    GEEWHIZ-I would like a share as well ala Alaska but I will settle for spending on infrastructure.

    You should agree then that the government should nationalise all mines, compensate the squealing owners and allow all Aussies to share in the spoils.

  • 32
    Owen Gary
    Posted Friday, 25 November 2011 at 3:59 am | Permalink

    These mining companies are heavily backed by their “international banksters” so while this land is being raped & pillaged, the capital is flowing out of the country & into other countries to exploit their resources.

    I pesonally believe these miners should be paying 50% of their net profit back to the country of where the resources are coming from. It is a game of pure exploitation in which the rules are constantly rigged to suit foreign & anonymous investment which just about always ends up stuffing or poisoning the environment & giving back very little in the process. I think 50% on the trillions they make worldwide is more than enough in anybodies language!!!

    If you think for 1 minute that they will take their investment elsewhere think again, Australia offers the infrastructure (always heavily subsidized by the govt) & guaranteed flow of these resources at a large volume, this cannot be guaranteed in most other countries. In countries where they do (i.e.) Escondida/Chile etc, BHP & the other big miners run & poison those as well. (Ok-Tedi, New Guinea) is but one example.

    The population of this country & others are getting “royally screwed bigtime” whilst these miners play musical chairs between the continents running off with trillions & bullying the governments into submission using their ill-gotten gains.

    They embark on the standard propaganda campaign using the regular gun for hire in the form of the “Rupert Murdor Empire” to slander or dig dirt on anyone or party that stands in their way. This will always be the Labor party because the Liberals have always prostituted themselves to big business without fail. Indeed most of these industrialists & banksters have thrived on the “Conservative Ideology” of take everything & give nothing back for the last two centuries & probably beyond.

    The Liberals are nothing more than glorified book-keepers who cut from the bottom to give to the top, this has always been their path. Nearly all instrumental reform has come from Labor in the past whilst the Libs just pull out the knives!!!

    In saying this I believe there is little difference between these two parties these days, they both perpetrate this illusion that they are different & the public keep sucking it up. It’s quite simple really all these mining & industrial concerns fund both parties heavily as the two tier party system is standard across the globe, why control one party when you can buy both!!!!

    In this latest debacle the “big miners” got off virtually scot free yet again!!!!!

  • 33
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    Here you go, here is the proof, a little late

    Australia’s economy shed almost 40,000 full-time jobs last month, pushing the unemployment rate up to 5.3 per cent, and raising the likelihood of more interest rate cuts to come.

    The economy lost 39,900 full-time positions last month more than reversing the 26,200 full-time jobs added in October, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported today. The tally was the most full-time positions shed by employers since April.

    It’s a softer number…much weaker than the market had been looking for,” said Macquarie economist Brian Redican. “The longer this kind of softness persists the greater downside risk for consumer spending and that’s just going to put pressure on businesses.”

  • 34
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Friday, 9 December 2011 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    Looks like ly-ing Gillard, inept Swan, zero experience Combet and woeful Wong will be chocking on their eggs benedict this morning.

    Record Low

    Prices for Certified Emission Reductions, known as CERs, for December delivery settled today at 4.90 euros ($6.57) a metric ton on the ICE Futures Europe exchange, the lowest closing price since they began trading in 2008. The credits have lost 80 percent from their peak of 25 euros in July 2008.

    The discount of EU-banned credits for 2012 over those accepted in 2013, traded as a separate contract, widened 12 percent to 48 cents.

    HFC-23 and N2O projects have racked up about 500 million CERs valued at more than 2.5 billion euros at today’s prices. Developers received 144 million CERs in 2011, including those that will still be accepted in the EU system. That compares with 78 million in 2010 and 82.8 million in 2009, according to UN data. The projects stand to earn at least 150 million credits by the end of 2012, according to Bloomberg estimates.

    Supply in 2011 may surpass 300 million tons this year and next under the UN-run emissions credit market, from 132 million last year, said Trevor Sikorski, a London-based analyst at Barclays Capital. It will keep rising in 2012, he said.
    “Next year is another difficult one for the carbon market” Sikorski said in an interview in Singapore. “It looks a heavily supplied year.”

Womens Agenda

loading...

Leading Company

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...