Australia - you're standing in it

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog started the topic in Friday, 18 Sep 2020 at 11:51am

The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.

Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 9:37am
gsco wrote:

I'd hazard to guess that everyone in these forums approx my age (mid-late 40s) or older will know about, and even recall living through, Australia's path of economic reform in the 80s and 90s (well...it's still going really...).

These reforms were termed economic rationalism or economic liberalisation, and roughly started with the Hawke govt. They included things like privatisation of government assets, labour market and financial system deregulation, globalisation and reduced trade protections, reduced restrictions on international capital flows, a general reduction in the welfare state, microeconomic reform, enhanced competition policy, deregulation of various industries such as transport and telecommunications and airlines, tax reform, etc.

The motivation for economic rationalism would also be well known and possibly have been experienced by some: inflation and stagflation in the 70s and 80s, influence from ideas from economic theory particularly the benefits of free trade, compared to nowadays relatively volatile boom-bust swings in the business cycle, the perceived need for global competitiveness and in general a focus on increased economic efficiency, a rise in free market ideology and belief in the power and effectiveness of markets, a belief that these reforms would drive sustained long-term gains in productivity and wages, etc.

The inflation of the 70s and 80s was definitely one of the main factors, and it also had a big impact on the why the Reserve Bank's (nearly sole) focus of monetary policy is inflation targeting. And crush inflation they did - it stood no chance at all against these domestic reforms aimed at increasing competition combined with significant international competition and relentless inflation targeting...! And our economy is very resilient and stable, and has very impressively withstood some major economic shocks in the past few decades: Asian financial crisis, sovereign debt crises, tech/dot-com bubble, GFC, now covid, etc...

But one spectacular failure has been productivity and wages growth - this promise just didn't materialise. And this may also be reflective of more general, broader social and cultural realities of a nation having gone through a few decades of economic reforms focused on increasing competition: Australia seems to be going down the path of becoming an increasingly one-dimensional, socially and culturally bankrupt nation focused solely on creating an increasingly competitive, dog-eat-dog, rat-race society in which it's a struggle just to survive and put food on one's plate.

I just wonder: all the economic reforms focused on deregulation, efficiency and competition - but at what social and human cost?

And this is coming from someone who has been fortunate to do well enough to semi-retire in my mid 40s.

I know this might be a reflection of living on the Sunshine Coast which is currently seriously heaving, straining and bursting at the seams from population growth - seemingly a bunch of opportunistic, zero care factor city people with no connection to the place. But I see most people around me increasingly hammering away and working their arses off in an increasingly competitive, cut-throat, ruthless society but largely getting nowhere, just going around in circles, spinning their wheels, and the walls just closing in around them, barely staying afloat. And I see a significant portion of society being left behind.

I also wonder about these things after having travelled to northern Europe, especially the Nordic/Scandinavian countries, and experienced their cultures and way of life. I have to say, the social, cultural and living standards outcomes in those countries seem much better and more balanced that in Australia, the US and the UK... Actually I've travelled through a lot of Asia and a thought I regularly had was I really only saw extreme poverty in the US. And of course the Nordic countries all rank the highest on world happiness, development index, etc reports (I know Aus also ranks fairly well too), and I can see why.

The thing I find strange is now a lot of nations are having a rethink and there is possibly paradigm shift taking place, such as in the US Biden administration, but the kickback and resistance to the economic ideas and principles that make the Nordic countries great places is just fierce. There seems to be full blown warfare like tactics from many corners of society of mass misinformation, propaganda, smoke-and-mirrors, diversions and distractions etc all aimed at sabotaging, undermining and discrediting the consideration of these economic realities of these really well developed northern European nations. These Nordic countries are also regularly termed as communist/socialist, which is completely absurd.

I think there is a lot to be said for Australia just stopping, taking a good hard look around at what's going on in the world, and choosing a more intelligent way forward economically, culturally and socially - including moving away and distancing itself from the US model - instead of continuing to go down the path of a one-dimensional nation focused on creating a society based on extreme competition.

Boom. thats it thank you gsco for the ability to express the reality which many face but can not put into words.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 10:35am

Thanks for that analysis gsco. I would make the point that these negative outcomes you describe have not been an inevitable consequence of economic reform so much as the deliberate policies of conservative parties in the UK, US and Australia since the 1980s. Neoliberalism might preach a free market ethos but the reality is very different. In Australia alone, government support for the fossil fuel industry annually runs at around $12 billion with some much higher estimates. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/P1021-Fossi... The current National Gas Infrastructure Plan will probably lead to increases in these subsidies, much of it hidden in vaguely described infrastructure plans such as the one for the port of Broome. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/P1021-Fossi...

The housing market, which has been distorted by negative gearing to further increase the natural advantages of those who already own property, also shows the trend of interfering in markets. Governments, of course, should interfere in markets, but not to further disadvantage the vulnerable, increase the wealth of the wealthy or to prop up antiquated energy sources.

The graphs in this link show the rise of the top 1%’s share of the nation’s wealth and the decline in wage growth. https://www.actu.org.au/media/1033439/actu-ineqaulity-report-2017.pdf. Again these are the result of deliberate policy. As recent events have shown Australia could easily have afforded higher wage growth and welfare payments above the poverty line over recent years that would have reduced inequality.

Thomas Picketty highlighted some of the issues in Capital and argued that growing inequality was a threat to democracy. Given recent events in the US and elsewhere that looks like an accurate prediction. Even making the highly dubious assumption that neoliberal policies increase economic growth it is clear that, as well as the risk to democracy, the price for this is increasingly paid by the most vulnerable be they gig workers, the under employed or welfare recipients. The arguments that these people are somehow undeserving of better is beneath contempt particularly when it comes from the socially and economically privileged.

Margaret Thatcher famously claimed that there was no such thing as society and then set out on proving her point by doubling unemployment and increasing the child poverty rate to near 30% while increasing inequality to a level it still remains stuck at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#Criticism. That Australia, with all its natural advantages should have followed some of the way down the same path remains a national tragedy.

Australia has the wealth to support its population in comfort. That it does not do so is the direct result of uncaring governments driven by narrow social and economic views that are now rapidly reaching their use by date. The electoral success of neoliberal governments has been driven by a partnership with multinational media organisations mixing propaganda with outright lies to build the wealth of the privileged classes and prevent action on climate change. In the process they have undermined confidence in science and, by divisive attacks on their opponents when they were in power, trust in government. We have been reaping the consequences of these actions for some time now and there is worse to come on the climate front. The next election will be critical and present the starkets choice in Australia's history. A move towards more progressive government to benefit all Australians or further down the road to inequality, division and decreasing democracy.

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 10:37am

That’s a great, and easy to follow, little run of analysis. Thanks gsco and bb.

I too wonder why Australia, with its social history and its geographic advantages, trends toward the US approach vice the Nordic. I believe we’d all be some much better off under the latter.

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 10:40am

Because the political and business culture has been for go-getters to go and get MBA's and spend time in American think tanks.

And thus import American management/political culture.

ergo, the entertainment industry.

gragagan's picture
gragagan's picture
gragagan Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 11:01am

Well said gsco and bb. Couldn't agree more.

Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 11:17am

bb freeride nailing it. I don't mind poverty of my own making just don't rub my nose in it. The American dream was never my Australian dream yet it is becoming a mirror image in so many ways. Thinktanks are idea and collaborator engine spaces of thinking, how do they work to influence policies here in Australia? Are they a path to change or is that impossible dreaming?

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 11:52am

Good mate of mine, very occasional poster on here, recently left his company of 15 years employment for greener pastures. He was on the up in the business. Major cause of the shift was the growth of the company to a point where they now employed a professional ‘managerial class’ of people educated not in the industry but in ‘management and communications’. This crew have no concept of the business they’re now leading.
I’ve seen it in my own workplace, where the experience, qualifications and motivation of existing workforce is wilfully ignored in favour of the glossy presentations and arcane buzzwords of overpaid consultants. Which delivers nada…
My personal hate is ‘facilitated workshops’. Usually some nattily dressed fuckhead speaking a buzzword-corrupted version of English with a whiteboard, butchers paper and coloured pens ‘coaching’ a bunch of professionals through ‘analysis’ that is industry entry level at best. Fuck I hate those things.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 12:43pm

I’m afraid I can’t take a word of what BB says seriously as he relentlessly undermines everything he claims to believe in with his ardent dedication to the cynical neoliberal tool of the mass immigration Ponzi scheme.

He wants to talk subsidies for business, yet fails to mention the outrageous costs imposed on every Australian and our country itself when it is unilaterally forced upon us to accomodating millions more people every few years. The importation of humans is a subsidy for so many rent seeking industries in Australia that it’s ridiculous.

Subsidies of business through the mass immigration model are magnitudes larger than any for the fossil fuel industries. We are talking hundreds of billions of dollars. In reality it’s probably way more expensive than any dollar amount when one considers the true impact which extends from koalas facing extinction all the way to inequality through availability of drinking water and through to hours of lives spent sitting in traffic and the overwhelmed hospitals.

The single most destructive neoliberal tool is mass immigration. Until BB and his ilk acknowledge this and cease their lies, obfuscation and anti-scientific denial of it, we will never be able to address the problem.

BB specifically mentions the $12B subsidy of a fossil fuel industry, which has generated a large share of our collective wealth , but fails to acknowledge that most crowd mitigation infrastructure projects such as Westconnex,which produce nothing more than accomodate for unnecessary and unwanted population growth, routinely cost more than that on their own and there’s dozens of them. Even worse is that the subsidies are never finished as the cost of infrastructure is then further imposed on Australians in the form of private taxes AKA tolls.

“Budgeted at $16.8 billion by the NSW government, the additional costs suggest the true price of WestConnex would be close to $21 billion.“

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 12:56pm

I liked most of gsco's post .

A few things . Central Banks sometimes get the right outcome eg RBA reducing inflation . They turned us into a "Banana Republic " ( Keating ) in the process increasing rates to 18% . Other factors like GSCO pointed out were also in play ( they ALWAYS are ) like slow real wage growth and productivity . Maybe they were lucky but many Australians did not feel the same as it caused the "recession we had to have " ( again Keating ).

Keynes had a simple view . Save money in the good times and spend the savings when times are tough .

To help the US recover Bernanke , the Chairman of the FED , bastardised Keynes view and brought in QE1 . Pumped a trillion ( not the real figure ) into the system . That didn't do anything .

Rather than think why ( it was that the velocity of money plummeted and people and companies would not borrow no matter how low rates went ) he thought what most central bankers think . I am right but I just didn't do enough , so QE2 another trillion .

When that didn't work ( velocity of money ) same stupid thought process QE3 , two trillion this time .

He has painted the US and the world ( the ECB and now the RBA did the same thing ) into a corner .

Japan's central bank has been trying this experiment for 20 years plus and has not been able to get inflation up .

The Scandinavian countries can show us some things to do . They are very different to OZ but one thing is clear . Norway is going well due to one main reason . They are making billions from selling fossil fuels . Way too many people in Oz don't want us to do the same thing . They even bitch and complain and want to punish our companies that produce iron ore and coking coal the enables the world to make steel and build .

It's not easy being Green .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 1:04pm

Unwanted population growth? By you maybe but in a democracy the majority who approve of it are the ones who will be listened to. https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/themes/immigration-and-refugees/ As an immigrant, my default view is to support it but I am also happy to accept changes to the policy if support drops. I think you might want to have a look at your logic there also as your claims on the economic impacts would seem to directly contradict themselves. In terms of the environmental impacts of population growth my view is that the vast majority of our environmental problems have arisen from greed and appalling policies over a long period. Comparisons with other nations with dense populations suggests this.

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 1:27pm

“ 64%, think the level of immigration in Australia over the past decade has been too high – up from 50% recorded in October 2016.”

No majority there.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/24/australians-growi...

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 1:30pm

....but 47% still approve of our immigration policy from the link provided. Contradictions like that usually indicate a poor survey but as I said if the majority want a reduction I have no problem. The immediate issue though is how much is too much? I doubt if there is much support for zero given the labor shortages in various industries.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 1:32pm
blindboy wrote:

Unwanted population growth? By you maybe but in a democracy the majority who approve of it are the ones who will be listened to. https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/themes/immigration-and-refugees/ As an immigrant, my default view is to support it but I am also happy to accept changes to the policy if support drops. I think you might want to have a look at your logic there also as your claims on the economic impacts would seem to directly contradict themselves. In terms of the environmental impacts of population growth my view is that the vast majority of our environmental problems have arisen from greed and appalling policies over a long period. Comparisons with other nations with dense populations suggests this.

There’s many polls showing the rejection of the mass immigration Ponzi scheme by Australians. Perhaps the indisputable evidence is that the mortal enemies of the ALP and LNP have a clandestine agreement to never ever take the issue to an election despite knowing that they will be guaranteed Victory. The ALP would literally stay in opposition forever than break this anti-democratic covenant.

As for the rest of your dribble about greed and policy destroying the environment…..save it bloke. The easiest way to dismantle that strawman is to ask what ever happened to your dedication to the precautionary principle.

You’ve said so yourself that you are ideologically opposed to reducing immigration. You are willing to deny the will of the people and scientific evidence in pursuit of what you believe.

And no reference to the absolute truth bomb which my entire previous post was about- the hundreds of billions of dollars subsidy for an outcome the Australian population and our country, not only don’t want or need but which we literally cannot sustain.

It shows exactly how demented you are when you find no problem in the issue of constructing environmentally destructive, inequality entrenching and completely unnecessary synthetic water generation merely so you can indulge your perverted dream of infinite population growth.

You are a sham bloke. You can’t wait to abandon every single bit of commitment to all these issues you bleat about all the time.

Zero integrity.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 1:32pm
Blowin wrote:

BB specifically mentions the $12B subsidy of a fossil fuel industry, which has generated a large share of our collective wealth , but fails to acknowledge that most crowd mitigation infrastructure projects such as Westconnex,which produce nothing more than accomodate for unnecessary and unwanted population growth, routinely cost more than that on their own and there’s dozens of them. Even worse is that the subsidies are never finished as the cost of infrastructure is then further imposed on Australians in the form of private taxes AKA tolls.

“Budgeted at $16.8 billion by the NSW government, the additional costs suggest the true price of WestConnex would be close to $21 billion.“

The whole fossil fuel subsidy thing is misleading anyway, most of it is Diesel fuel rebates for equipment and trucks not used on public roads its over 30c in every litre that they get back.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 1:38pm
blindboy wrote:

....but 47% still approve of our immigration policy from the link provided. Contradictions like that usually indicate a poor survey but as I said if the majority want a reduction I have no problem. The immediate issue though is how much is too much? I doubt if there is much support for zero given the labor shortages in various industries.

If you were speaking a scintilla of truth you’d drop the gaslighting. But no….” Labour shortages which require mass immigration “ it is.

The Fake Left fall over themselves to parrot the lies put forwards by corrupt corporations when it suits them.

Zero integrity.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 1:39pm
indo-dreaming wrote:
Blowin wrote:

BB specifically mentions the $12B subsidy of a fossil fuel industry, which has generated a large share of our collective wealth , but fails to acknowledge that most crowd mitigation infrastructure projects such as Westconnex,which produce nothing more than accomodate for unnecessary and unwanted population growth, routinely cost more than that on their own and there’s dozens of them. Even worse is that the subsidies are never finished as the cost of infrastructure is then further imposed on Australians in the form of private taxes AKA tolls.

“Budgeted at $16.8 billion by the NSW government, the additional costs suggest the true price of WestConnex would be close to $21 billion.“

The whole fossil fuel subsidy thing is misleading anyway, most of it is Diesel fuel rebates for equipment and trucks not used on public roads its over 30c in every litre that they get back.

Mate, wait until you’ve driven down hundreds of kilometres of taxpayer funded road constructed purely to service a mine before you start making claims like that.

Not to mention the port at the end of the road which is also partly funded by tax payer money.

Or the geosurveys which were carried out by government departments then handed to private businesses.

Or the endless political suck n swallow to support those businesses.

Etc etc

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 1:36pm

"The whole fossil fuel subsidy thing is misleading anyway, most of it is Diesel fuel rebates for equipment and trucks not used on public roads its over 30c in every litre that they get back."

Ha ha ha ha ha! Priceless Indo!

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 1:52pm

BB - You are such a hypocrite . One moment you quote a survey as say listen to democracy and then when a survey is posted that you don't agree with you write this .

"....but 47% still approve of our immigration policy from the link provided. Contradictions like that usually indicate a poor survey " .

Your credibility has gone into the negative today . Well done !

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 1:58pm

Oh tedium!

What he says I said:

"You’ve said so yourself that you are ideologically opposed to reducing immigration. You are willing to deny the will of the people and scientific evidence in pursuit of what you believe."

What I actually said:

"As an immigrant, my default view is to support it but I am also happy to accept changes to the policy if support drops. "

The one track mind rolls on impervious to evidence and argument.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 2:38pm

BB- Not sure about the quotes you mentioned . They had nothing to do with what I said .

As you said -"Oh tedium!"

It is getting very tedious pointing out your incorrect comments and hypocrisy .

One more time .

You quoted a survey and then you said a few minutes later don't believe surveys because ""....but 47% still approve of our immigration policy from the link provided. Contradictions like that usually indicate a poor survey " .

Please do not tell me if you do or don't get it now .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 2:50pm

It was Blowin's comment. Yawn

What he said I said:

"then you said a few minutes later don't believe surveys "

What I actually said:

"Contradictions like that usually indicate a poor survey but as I said if the majority want a reduction I have no problem."

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 2:56pm

Fuck off . The point was you believed in a survey ( without qualifications ) that agreed with you point of view . Then a minute later you doubted a survey due to your qualifications BECAUSE you didn't agree with its outcome .

Your attempts to explain away your obvious mistakes are becoming so tedious they are ridiculous .

Piss off . You are wasting my time !

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 3:00pm

No, I don't think I will Hutchy, but in the mean time we consider it good manners to keep obscenities off the front page.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 3:19pm
blindboy wrote:

Oh tedium!

What he says I said:

"You’ve said so yourself that you are ideologically opposed to reducing immigration. You are willing to deny the will of the people and scientific evidence in pursuit of what you believe."

What I actually said:

"As an immigrant, my default view is to support it but I am also happy to accept changes to the policy if support drops. "

The one track mind rolls on impervious to evidence and argument.

You’ve argued against it from every conceivable angle for years. You think one comment mitigates your usual slathered obstinacy?

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 3:22pm

Not sure if it’s entirely appropriate complaining about someone wasting your time when you are arguing on the Internet.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 3:30pm

You are right for a change BB . Apologies for the swearing as it is not something I normally do . That's is how much I am irritated at your slimy , scheming and lack of accountability behaviour .

I will really try and improve but I don't expect you to .

Since I posted on the Fed on this thread I will post this as showing how some on the Fed behave .

I don't care BB if you don't like that I have not said where I copied this from .

Well, it may not be George (yet) but overnight the government ethics office published forms which showed that none other than the (centrist) Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida may be the next to "retire" (perhaps he too is on a kidney transplant list) following the revelation that he was trading in and out of millions in securities on February 27, 2020 just one day before Fed Chair Powell issued an (extremely bullish) emergency statement hinting at possible policy action as the pandemic worsened.

Just saw your comment Blowin and you are right to . Frustration at people who keep making up excuses which is no excuse .

Fliplid's picture
Fliplid's picture
Fliplid Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 5:25pm

Hutchy said - “Norway is going well due to one main reason . They are making billions from selling fossil fuels . Way too many people in Oz don't want us to do the same thing”

‘Norway also established the principle that the state was to have a 50 per cent ownership interest in every production licence.
The SDFI system means that the Norwegian state owns holdings in a number of oil and gas fields, pipelines and onshore facilities. The proportion is determined when production licences are awarded, and varies from field to field. As one of several owners, the State covers its share of investments and costs, and receives a corresponding share of the income from production licences.’

https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/framework/norways-petroleum-history/

Australia practically gives away our resources compared to Norway.

If Norway can set up this arrangement why couldn’t Australia? If it was we’d have a sovereign wealth fund rivalling Norways.

It’s not just the fossil fuels that have made Norway a wealthy nation, Australia has resources rivalling Norway. It is the way the Norwegian political class have arranged the affairs of the nation so that an equal portion of the value from resources stays in the country to benefit everyone not just an elite few companies.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 6:15pm
blindboy wrote:

"The whole fossil fuel subsidy thing is misleading anyway, most of it is Diesel fuel rebates for equipment and trucks not used on public roads its over 30c in every litre that they get back."

Ha ha ha ha ha! Priceless Indo!

Here you go your beloved Guardian 7.8 Billion a year claimed by the fossil fuel industry in Diesel rebates

Off course the Guardian suggest they wind them back.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/09/taxpayers-could-s...

Obviously the reality is they bring in much much much much more to the economy, and pay huge amounts in royalties and tax.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Sunday, 3 Oct 2021 at 8:56pm

A subsidy is a subsidy. If they genuinely believed in free markets, as they claim to do, it would be user pays all the way. Then there is the advantage it gives to fossil fuels over other possible energy sources. This is clearly not wise as new potentially cheaper and more environmentally friendly energy sources come on line. It's a backward looking policy from a backward looking government.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 7:49am

It's not a really a subsidy anyway, it's more a tax on diesel for road users, but if you use diesel for use that's not on public roads you dont pay the tax so you get it back as a rebate as obviously you cant purchase the fuel without the added road tax.

Yeah sure there might be an argument now that it's time to do away with the rebate but as the article mentions it could also have a negative effect on remote communities and also farmers.

So probably not the best time with Covid and some uncertainty to remove it now, better to remove during better times and then you would need to compensate farmers as you dont want to disadvantage them. (maybe even compensate mining for minerals for renewables who also benefit etc)

Anyway it dates back to 2000 so not a recent thing.

I lived on Fraser Island for a few years locals there have a similar thing with car rego, they pay virtually nothing if they dont take their car off the island as there is no made roads, my car was not diesel but i expect if they aren't going off the island they can claim the rebate too, or diesel generators etc

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 8:54am

Fliplid-"Norway also established the principle that the state was to have a 50 per cent ownership interest in every production licence."

Great to see that you are in the sensible camp that realise that producing and selling fossil fuels is a good policy .

The question is how we fund them and how we tax them . Australia does it like most of the rest of the world . Norway does it like most of the Middle East .

Australia has resources that far outstrip Norway . Think Iron Ore , coal , agriculture etc . When we started ( think before 1900 ) we didn't have the money to fund 50% of these huge projects and needed overseas money . Norway's system came in much later .

We get royalties , company taxes , and huge employment from our wonderful companies . They more than pay their way in the long term . You are very wrong if you think we are giving it away .

Thanks to Howard we have a sovereign wealth fund . I don't know how they compare but I know ours is growing very well .

soggydog's picture
soggydog's picture
soggydog Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 10:06am

Hutchy, do you remember Brendan Grylls, former leader of the Nationals in WA suggesting we re negotiate royalties with BHP and RIo Tinto to bring them in line with the other iron ore producers. Do you remember the scare campaign put forward by the Minerals council of Australia.

We didn’t get the royalties and we lost a great politician who was doing great things for WA.

You have a very rose coloured view of the mining industry, something myself and my wife have years of experience in, that lacks a little reality.

Fliplid's picture
Fliplid's picture
Fliplid Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 9:58am

Yeah Hutchy no problems with fossil fuels or mining, we'd be a different country without them. Not saying it isn't time for an adjustment though.

Regarding the financing question you raised, by what I understand, Norway also needed foreign investment to start up the industry but they decided to do it in partnership with foreign capital rather than give it all away and so kept a large portion of ownership. Australia had a similar idea in the 70's but there was so much opposition to it from vested interests it never happened.

The same arguments made by those vested interests in Australia were made in Norway but the Norwegian government basically said, fine if you don't want a partnership with us we'll give the licenses to someone who does. The rest as they say, is history.

Like I said before it is 2 different ideas, Norway, also Middle East and Brunei said lets make sure our people get a larger and fairer portion of what is legally owned by us so more benefits go to the nation.

The Australian government, and others around the world, gave in to the arguments and took a smaller portion. Sort of why have the cake when you can take the crumbs.

It is similar to the colonial attitude of giving away land and resources to a select few to the exclusion of the many.

It's been shown also that here are plenty of ways to game the system and pay less than they should. Like who is actually counting what goes on the ships or through the pipeline? Not too mention the various offshoring of payments and taxes

As for Australias sovereign wealth fund compared to Norways, think of a flea on an elephant

soggydog's picture
soggydog's picture
soggydog Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 10:04am

Selling fossil fuels may not be the best policy for Australia going forward if new trade agreements have Emissions targets and fossil fuel production tied to tariffs on imports and exports.
Something that’s currently being discussed globally.

Sprout's picture
Sprout's picture
Sprout Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 10:09am

An oil spill off the California coast destroyed a wildlife habitat and caused dead birds and fish to wash up on Huntington Beach, officials say

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/03/us/california-oil-spill/index.html

gsco's picture
gsco's picture
gsco Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 10:13am

Thanks for the great responses to my thoughts. I read every one of them and will address some of the points made when I get a chance. Beautiful weekend on the Sunshine Coast and been some nice waves about.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 10:22am

Fliplid - As I said the funding and taxation system Australia used and uses was started close to a hundred years before Norway chose theirs . It was the same model used around the world .

The middle east were getting ripped off so it was easy for them to change when they had their own money .

I can't remember any major push to reform in the 70's . It definitely wasn't Australia's peoples idea . Also very hard to change a legacy system . Maybe that's when royalties were substantially increased .

We started our sovereign wealth fund after the Norwegians . Their fund is the largest in the world .

Ours is about 15% of theirs ( a fucken big flea ) . I think we fight above our weight division on this as we usually do .

Fliplid's picture
Fliplid's picture
Fliplid Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 11:09am

Hutch I'd guess there's been plenty of changes made to the tax system so personally I think that it was a result of giving into vested interests that prevented the changes not any inability to do it. Obviously you think otherwise.

At least you can be assured that the system will never change. At the end of the day though Norway will have gained so many (many many many) more benefits from their resources compared to Australia. I'm glad you are happy with that arrangement and all the consequences that entails

"Ours is about 15% of theirs ( a fucken big flea )" Yeah, I'm prone to exaggeration and hyperbole. Still, it's a pretty big fucken elephant

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 11:19am

Flipid - your presumptions are rude . I don't agree to give in to vested interests or am happy with shit arrangements and their consequences .

A flea that is 15% the size of an elephant would mean the elephant is TINY .

Your continued exaggerations and outrageous presumptions are disappointing !

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 11:54am

Pandora's Box is about to be opened. Nervous times for the bigendians.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/secrets-of-the-rich-...

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 11:57am

NSW Premier in waiting Dom Perrottet filmed doing speech on supporting the churches right to protect paedophiles who confess their sins

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 12:00pm

Those cheering Glad's downfall might come to regret her departure. Perrotet is a mini-Abbot.

Fliplid's picture
Fliplid's picture
Fliplid Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 12:03pm

Didn't mean any offence Hutchy.

From what you have written before you seem to shrug off any suggestions that anything should be done to get a fairer slice of the pie.

In future I will tone down the exaggerations and modify my presumptions ;)

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 12:08pm

Thanks Fiplid !

"From what you have written before you seem to shrug off any suggestions that anything should be done to get a fairer slice of the pie."

I must not have expressed myself well . Always want Australia and Australians to get their fair share . I expect other countries to do the same .

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 1:29pm
blindboy wrote:

Those cheering Glad's downfall might come to regret her departure. Perrotet is a mini-Abbot.

You're joking right? Miss Pork barrel should be jailed. Just because the next turd smells more than the last turd, a turd is still a turd.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 1:35pm

Sheepdog - I hope you agree that the avoidable deaths of 800 people in Vic due to Andrews stinks more !

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 1:37pm

As someone said on Sunday, "don't forget to put your clocks forward by an hour for daylight savings. And those in NSW, also rememember to put your calenders back to 1950"

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/politics/labor-to-target-domini...

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 1:41pm
Hutchy 19 wrote:

Sheepdog - I hope you agree that the avoidable deaths of 800 people in Vic due to Andrews stinks more !

There was no vaccine then. And most deaths were due to Federal running of aged care, allowing cleaners to work at 3 different nursing homes in one day. So yes the deaths were avoidable. Shame the feds did nothing huh?
And now the poor viccos, Canberrans etc are suffering thanks to Gladys not locking down on June 21, like S.A, W.A, and Qld all have done when delta appears. She infected NZ too.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 1:50pm

Sheepdog . You have no idea ! I have had this discussion with some other uninformed person .

This what they called in inquiry -COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry .

Shame on you for not knowing and letting Dan off scot free .

Terrible you turn a blind eye on a tragedy just because your side caused it .

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Monday, 4 Oct 2021 at 2:01pm

I can’t believe there’s an honest to goodness right winger on the forums.

At least he’s honest about his beliefs. It’s refreshing.