The 2015 Prime Minister shuffle

[Isochronous]

I think we need a15% GST anyway - while it is a little regressive, the rich do spend more and it also captures those who are otherwise avoiding -- we do need to reform other taxes

On Super you do run into issues of double taxing but would have no issues with a higher bracket/surcharge for high super income earners

We should be like Canada and cut the GST.

As for the Barbara Ramjan smear - that was an unsubstantiated accusation from a left wing activist. By contrast, a Labor member reported Bill Shorten to the police for raping her!

Once again, the double standards of the left are on display again.

 

[whatmeworry]

For those of you that haven't heard, don't forget to #putoutyouronions

 

[RooFlyer]

Dear, oh dear, <stuff> continues by anonymous internet posters. Very brave. <redacted> The Left are having a good day. Enjoy it while it lasts.

It would be nice if it was a bit imaginative. But no, the same hoary old lines and misrepresentations; the same 'Julia Gillard sign' picture (where someone with a sign moved behind TA when he was speaking - there was no purposeful association between the two, but we all know that, don't we). The use of this sign in any discourse to illustrate some hackneyed point about TA, and knowing the background to the sign pic tells me far more about the side than TA.

The mining tax (which incompetently didn't raise any revenue to speak of) was axed; the carbon tax (which wasn't a tax on carbon at all) is gone (so we also forego the 0.00001 deg C impact it was calculated to have on global warming - oh, the horror, the horror!!!) and the boats have been stopped, and the drownings at sea off Australia have also stopped.

The latter one is my favourite, as it skewers the left so nicely. To nay say the policy they have to say they want the status quo ante (as the Greens at least honestly say they do) - with the inevitable drownings, and the enrichment of people smugglers. I can never understand how the people who fly to places like Indonesia, settle there for a period, then can afford to pay people smugglers thousands of dollars can be described as 'the most vulnerable'. I always think of 'the most vulnerable' as the poor wretches in refugee camps in the Horn of Africa for instance who have no money or opportunity to pay people smugglers etc. These are the people who are displaced from Australia's refugee humanitarian intake by the people with the money to come via air and people smuggler.

Yet the Left appear to prefer the latter moneyed type of entrant to the poor sods in refugee camps. I guess with the moneyed entrants the Left can show their endless 'compassion' right at home, wailing over the bodies of the drowned. No need to divert from their First Class flights to the Gulf, to the dirty and dusty refugee camps in the region. Ewwwww!

The detention centres were empty when John Howard was beaten. They filled to overflowing under the Labor/Green government of Rudd/Gillard/Rudd (not to mention Brown) and the coffin makers did better trade too; women, children, the lot. The detention centres were emptying again under Abbott (and Turnbull, I expect) and women and children are allowed into the community, with limits.

G'wan those Abbott haters - show us your compassion again; tell us how you support Abbott's 'boats' policy where drownings stopped, detention centres are emptying and Australia's refugee intake has stayed the same, if not increased - but there are more of the type of refugee who can't afford people smugglers (many of whom have been shown to be economic migrants). The Left know they want to; after all, they are so compassionate. I know they are: I've seen pictures many of them holding up little signs expressing how compassionate they are.

 

[whatmeworry]

Tony better hope Malcolm wins the next election. The Royal commission's that will be launched in revenge against Abbott and friends will be something for the ages.

 

[RooFlyer]

Tony better hope Malcolm wins the next election. The Royal commission's that will be launched in revenge against Abbott and friends will be something for the ages.

Careful, or else JT will haul you off to the Grammar thread - a fate worse than a RC . Apostrophe man strikes again!

Funny though; MT has a much better chance of winning the next election than TA, who I regarded as a political dead duck. So in his demise he may well be shielded from the 'revenge' RCs that you describe so accurately. If Bill Shorten is replaced by Australia's version of Jeremy Corbin by the rank-and-file compassionistas, as I suspect he will be, Abbott will be safe from 'revenge RCs' for a long time whilst Shorten may be left to swing in the breeze as a sacrifice by his former colleagues.

 

[quokka77]

Mandatory detention and boat turnarounds are problematic. There are moral problems / contradictions with both current and previous policies. Reduced numbers of drownings are of course a powerful utilitarian argument for a "whatever it takes" policy designed to stop asylum seekers getting on boats. However we are now faced with Australian governments underwriting corrupt and abusive prison camps offshore. Sure, these things are only happening to a few people, but make no mistake, they are happening, and it's the Australian government's policy that is responsible. Some of those interred are Syrian refugees - but they won't be eligible for resettlement inside the recent 12000 person quota. A true moral dilemma.

 

[quokka77]

The mining tax was poorly designed drron, but the answer should not have been to scrap it, rather it needed to be redesigned. The campaign by the mining industry against the original design was effective, and served to nobble it for good, whilst contributing to KRudd's demise. Somewhat akin to the CFMEU's anti ChAFTA campaign, which also promotes the Union sector's narrow self interest against those of the nation, and helped tear down aa PM as collateral damage.

 

[RooFlyer]

The mining tax was poorly designed drron, but the answer should not have been to scrap it, rather it needed to be redesigned. The campaign by the mining industry against the original design was effective, and served to nobble it for good, whilst contributing to KRudd's demise. Somewhat akin to the CFMEU's anti ChAFTA campaign, which also promotes the Union sector's narrow self interest against those of the nation, and helped tear down aa PM as collateral damage.

I think the union movement would be fooling itself if it thought its xenophobic campaign against ChAFTA contributed to TA's demise. After all, MT is just as in favour of it, and with better relations with the cross benchers, its more likely to pass the Senate.

The mining tax was just plain dumb in both its construction both Mk1 and Mk2, and its implementation. Two PMs had a go at it (and Swan disavows most of that) and it was just a shambles. You only have to look at the interaction with State Royalties to see that its designers were clueless.

Governments can't just tinker and 're-design' things like mining super profits tax. Mining and mining investment is a global industry and capital raising and deployment is budgeted by companies over decades. They simply won't invest in a mickey mouse country that changes its mining tax laws every year or so. Australia has many great geological and mining features, but its not unique in most of them. If the mining companies leave for better investment opportunities elsewhere, then the best designed mining taxes will tend to $zero, and it turns workers from tax payers to welfare dependents.

Its about stability and providing an environment where things are predictable - not changing special mining taxes every couple of years.

 

[TheRealTMA]

I think the union movement would be fooling itself if it thought its xenophobic campaign against ChAFTA contributed to TA's demise. After all, MT is just as in favour of it, and with better relations with the cross benchers, its more likely to pass the Senate.

The mining tax was just plain dumb in both its construction both Mk1 and Mk2, and its implementation. Two PMs had a go at it (and Swan disavows most of that) and it was just a shambles. You only have to look at the interaction with State Royalties to see that its designers were clueless.

Governments can't just tinker and 're-design' things like mining super profits tax. Mining and mining investment is a global industry and capital raising and deployment is budgeted by companies over decades. They simply won't invest in a mickey mouse country that changes its mining tax laws every year or so. Australia has many great geological and mining features, but its not unique in most of them. If the mining companies leave for better investment opportunities elsewhere, then the best designed mining taxes will tend to $zero, and it turns workers from tax payers to welfare dependents.

Its about stability and providing an environment where things are predictable - not changing special mining taxes every couple of years.

A bit OT but relevant to the mining tax discussion. The mining tax came from a good idea that a country should benefit from the resources gouged out of it by resale price transferring multinationals. It was just very poorly planned and badly implemented and politicians lost their nerve.

Interesting isn't it that Bolivia which produces some estimated 5,400,000 tonnes of Lithium a year has mandated that the mineral must be value added in Bolivia and here in Australia we ship iron and coal offshore as fast as possible for as low as possible price with minimum returns to the country.

 

[Warks]

Saw this on FB and thought it was relevant to this thread:

 

[Happy Trails]

Interesting isn't it that Bolivia which produces some estimated 5,400,000 tonnes of Lithium a year has mandated that the mineral must be value added in Bolivia and here in Australia we ship iron and coal offshore as fast as possible for as low as possible price with minimum returns to the country.

BHP and Rio lost billions trying to add value to iron ore at their HBI and HIsmelt plants.
Both heroic failures unfortunately.

 

[Hvr]

BHP and Rio lost billions trying to add value to iron ore at their HBI and HIsmelt plants.
Both heroic failures unfortunately.

Seems to me that says more about their managers than politicians,

 

[quokka77]

@RooFlyer: I know for a fact there has been a large doorknocking campaign in Canning by unionists, highlighting the ChAFTA as one of the main reasons to vote against the Coalition. This (probably) had an effect on the TPP polling of that seat (52-48 or a 10% swing against the Liberals), which in turn has fed into speculation on Abbot's leadership. Nevermind the ?$20million dollars spent by the CFMEU on those ever-so-homely primetime ads about Tony choosing China over Australian workers. Dog-whistle politics. It seems to have worked, which is unfortunate from a moral standpoint, but fortunate for the short-term good of the country in my opinion (to me Turnbull is vastly preferable to Abbot as PM).

 

[TheRealTMA]

I'm finding it thoroughly entertaining seeing the old dinosaurs from the right of the Liberals and Nats rolling over and showing their tummies and asking Malcolm to come and play with them...

And in the spirit of bipartisanism that we like promote on AFF ( - ) I also must add that I rang the CFMEU yesterday and recommended to them that they find a plumbing union to affiliate with because if I get another robo call from them at 3:45 pm on a Sunday afternoon, they would need a plumber to remove the telephone handset from this fellow called "Steve" who demanded 30 seconds of my time to put their case against the CFTA.

 

[RooFlyer]

A bit OT but relevant to the mining tax discussion. The mining tax came from a good idea that a country should benefit from the resources gouged out of it by resale price transferring multinationals. It was just very poorly planned and badly implemented and politicians lost their nerve.

Interesting isn't it that Bolivia which produces some estimated 5,400,000 tonnes of Lithium a year has mandated that the mineral must be value added in Bolivia and here in Australia we ship iron and coal offshore as fast as possible for as low as possible price with minimum returns to the country.

Pleased to have a discussion where we can be nicer to each other (include myself of course ).

Rio, BHP and Fortescue are all Australian domiciled, registered and operated in Australia, so I don't think there was much resale price transferring going on (the DLCs first have to satisfy their country of residence obligations, before the cash gets shifted within the DLC structure). Also, prices are set by global markets. They aren't like IT/computer companies who get themselves domiciled in Bahamas or Ireland and carry on from there.

Not only do they pay the same taxes as everyone else, but they also pay state govt royalties on top. Not as if they are getting a cheap ride.

The reason some mining companies get labelled with an apparent low tax rate is because of their eye-watering investment and capital outlays; they get the same deductions as you and me (in principle) only on a massive scale. These deductions are front end loaded (gotta borrow, then build the mine and plant over 5 years or so before you sell anything, then you have all those accumulated losses). What the punter today doesn't see is the 20-30 year tail of juicy taxed income from that investment.

Resources are owned by the Crown; the mining companies get licences to operate and pay taxes, plus, as I mentioned, royalties, on top of taxes, unlike most other companies in Australia. Unlike virtually every other industry (except maybe pharmaceuticals), the investment and decision making horizons of mining companies extend to decades. Sure, countries can change the tax rules; its when this happens suddenly and keeps changing (both like the Rudd/Swan/Gillard mining tax) that mining companies start looking for somewhere stable to invest their multi billions.

Whilst many people have disdain for the 'gouging' enterprises of mining companies, they are rather fond of the multi billions in taxes they pay - even without super profit taxes.(and its the word 'profit', and its implications that the Labor govt couldn't grasp)

I don't think your example re Bolivia is a good one. Australia is a diversified, open economy (with high input costs); anyone who wants it regulated as to what you can do with the gold, lithium or the potatoes you grow is nuts, IMHO. "You have to make steel from all the iron ore you mine here." - that won't work well, I promise you. There was a reason why the well established steel industry in Australia is now virtually extinct.

Bolivia on the other hand is a relatively small, less diversified economy and it happens to have large resources of salt based lithium. Lithium is a 'specialty metal' which only occurs economically in relatively few places around the world. Bolivia can afford to order value-adding, and good luck to them. If other equivalent resources of lithium can not be found elsewhere, they might get a win. But companies will be actively looking elsewhere, and if it is found elsewhere economically (and the hurdle just got lower!!), Bolivia won't get its lithium battery industry and investors will wonder if its worth looking for anything else there.

When there was a massive nickel deposit found in Labrador (Voisey's Bay), the provincial government insisted on 'value add' (building a smelter). This was crazy, as the miners had excess smelter capacity elsewhere - the billions to build and operate a new smelter was just doubling up; they refused, and the nickel stayed in the ground for a decade longer (IIRC) than it should have. The province, and the jobs for First Nations peoples etc there, were the big losers.

There are third world countries that are magnets for mining investment and are thriving (relative to their peers) because of it - Ghana, Burkina Faso, Chile, Mali, Laos (to a degree). The thing they have in common is a well structured mining tax regime. Mostly its all worked out up front and gets passed as an act of parliament. Everyone is locked in, and usually supervised by NGOs and the World Bank. You can argue about rates etc, but the point is that the landscape is obvious and relatively fixed - so companies invest and jobs, taxes and royalties result.

Apologies for the long post (again), but hopefully, if it hasn't convinced you about the mining tax of the former government, perhaps you might understand better what drives mining companies' investment. Chaos ain't in it.

 

[RooFlyer]

@RooFlyer: I know for a fact there has been a large doorknocking campaign in Canning by unionists, highlighting the ChAFTA as one of the main reasons to vote against the Coalition. This (probably) had an effect on the TPP polling of that seat (52-48 or a 10% swing against the Liberals), which in turn has fed into speculation on Abbot's leadership. Nevermind the ?$20million dollars spent by the CFMEU on those ever-so-homely primetime ads about Tony choosing China over Australian workers. Dog-whistle politics. It seems to have worked, which is unfortunate from a moral standpoint, but fortunate for the short-term good of the country in my opinion (to me Turnbull is vastly preferable to Abbot as PM).

Sorry, I don't get the "@" bit. Most people here call me RooFlyer, or RF; sometimes 'Rooy' and often "that &$%%#@!" . "@" is politer than the last example, but is it shorthand for something like "Esteemed elder"?

The union(s) have been campaigning against Abbott and his government ever since it was sworn in, and against Abbott and his party ever since he was made leader. Sure, with their corrupt practices being systematically exposed by the TURC (which I note they've gutto-ed out of challenging in court) its not surprising they have turned into a wide-eyed, foam-flecked lipped, gurgling sewer of hate in Canning (do you think I put that a bit strong?). Whether or not it was material in Abbott's downfall, who can say. I think most of the party room would increase their support for Abbott if it was a matter of judging him Vs what the unions are doing.

I'm ambivalent about Abbott vs Turnbull. I think Abbott is the superior person, but the weaker politician, and is or was less likely to win the next election for the Libs. If Turnbull can restrain his lurch to the luvvies (and so far he's appearing to do so) - at least till after the next election, then I'll regret Abbott's demise but look forward to the Labor rank and file sharpening the knife for Shorten.

 

[quokka77]

@ = shorthand for "in response to"... no disrespect intended!

Re the TURC: as I said before, Abbot's mistake in setting up the TURC was the terms of reference. If the RC had instead been tasked with identifying corruption across the political divide (ie in the manner of a federal ICAC-style inquiry) there could have been no argument with its intention or outcome. And if it had uncovered wrong-doing on the Labor side, well, throw the book at 'em.

Instead the TURC has wasted money and goodwill pursuing ex-Labor Prime Ministers (and the current LOTO), and focusing on only one side of politics. It has been at times nakedly political, and many of its findings will be dismissed as such.

Re: the mining tax, I will respond later...

 

[drron]

Bolivia is an interesting study with it's lithium rerves.It has roughly 50% of the world's known lithium but Chile produces 80% of the lithium now being used.
Because it does not discourage foreign investment there is a lot of money going into exploration for lithium in Chile.It includes the Japanese government giving cheap finance to Toyota to go into partnership with an Australian miner to do just that.Also the South Koreans are heavily investing in Chile.Bolivia better hope that they are unsuccessful.

The story with iron ore and coal is totally different with abundant reserves outside Australia.

 

[RooFlyer]

@ = shorthand for "in response to"... no disrespect intended!

Re the TURC: as I said before, Abbot's mistake in setting up the TURC was the terms of reference. If the RC had instead been tasked with identifying corruption across the political divide (ie in the manner of a federal ICAC-style inquiry) there could have been no argument with its intention or outcome. And if it had uncovered wrong-doing on the Labor side, well, throw the book at 'em.

Instead the TURC has wasted money and goodwill pursuing ex-Labor Prime Ministers (and the current LOTO), and focusing on only one side of politics. It has been at times nakedly political, and many of its findings will be dismissed as such.

Re: the mining tax, I will respond later...

Thanks re '@' ... must have whizzed over my head previously!

Looks like we won't agree on TURC. Any Royal Commission might be framed differently - why should the RC into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse not cover Child Abuse in general? Thinking amongst many was that it was framed by JG to square up the Catholic Church - ie Tony Abbott's mob. "Gotcha!!" It might have had that political objective, but it will do a lot of good, but terms of reference leaves vast areas of child abuse untouched. Does this count against JG's legacy?

A RC into union corruption Vs political corruption? OK, both have merit but union corruption isn't simply translatable into a witch-hunt against the Labor side of politics. Hear me out!!

Think of Williams and Thompson in the HSU; think of the Painters and Dockers, and their related. Williams and Thompson ripped off their members - most of which would be Labor voters; they will all be cheering that more figures in their union, not previously investigated, and now in the dock, so to speak. It was a number of Labor figures who joined the call for the RC, to get rid of the rotten office bearers they knew would survive otherwise.

I do not dispute that its a very convenient situation that many Labor figures are ex unionist, but that's theirs and the Party's choice. If there is corruption, find it and jail the perpetrators. The union movement and yes, the Labor party has been rather slow in doing so themselves.

(PS witness the difference in the Victorian liberal Party - when they found they had been swindled; that there was corruption in their ranks - called the cops immediately! Ever heard that in the union movement?)

 

[RooFlyer]

Michaelia Cash tipped for Immigration portfolio. Now that will be entertaining! I'm liking MT more already!