Menzies House

Mining small but big, Dr Dennis smart but du....?

Gary Knight critiques Dr Richard Denniss 's attack on the mining industry:

Dr Richard Denniss was at it again today, if he is not embarrassing himself by being academically crippled by Lord Monkton at the National Press Club Climate debate, he is busy releasing reports designed to wage a business class war against the mining industry.

The gist

The report is a basic factual account of some figures regarding the size of the Australian mining industry and where the profits go. The interpretation and moral argument that Dr Denniss spins from the facts are truly remarkable and need to be examined.

Dr Denniss argues that 82% percent of  Australian mining profits head overseas and considering that  foreign ownership of Australian mining is 82% that makes a lot of sense. When I invest in a company regardless of geographic location I expect the return from that investment to flow back to me, otherwise I would sell those shares immediately. 

Dr Denniss advocates that this large percentage of profits flowing back the the people who put up the capital in the first place is immoral and as a country we should seek to claim a greater share with the mining tax. It seems to me leftists cannot avoid the temptation to lift even more money from the hands of private individuals. 

ABC ignorance of mining diversity

Gary Knight writes on how life in mining communities is really like:

Deborah Cameron recently made comments suggesting that the mining lifestyle has no lifestyle appeal outside of an econmic one. She then went on to describe mining towns as a place unsuitable for raising children.

On what evidence does she make these claims and are they at all balanced? 

As a residence of a bustling North West Queensland mining community I find such blanket statements bordering on the offensive. Instead of getting angry I might illuminate the readers on why mining has many advantages to city life and that the industry is not just Fly In Fly Out mining camps. 

Here are some facts about my lifestyle. 

1. I work 4 days on and 4 days off, alternating beween days and then nights. Ample time to relax and when i take a block off i can potentially have 12 days of holidays which only cost me 48 hours of annual leave. Going back to a regular working week would cause mild depression. 

2. I earn more than a head teacher as a second year electrical apprentice, and do not have to do marking or extra activities once I clock off from work. 

Paul (Protectionism) Howes

Gary Knight explains  how free trade and small government is the only way for our economy to survive:

Recently in light of the shedding of some 1000 jobs by steel maker Bluescope, CWU chief Paul Howes has called for a return to protectionism to shelter trade exposed industries from the negative effects of the high Australian dollar. In particular he has called on government to regulate mining companies to be forced to buy Australian made steel. 

Mr Howes connections to The Socialist Alliance are well known, as are his claims to abandoning his socialist beliefs and recognizing the power of the market to provide prosperity. I wonder then why at every opportunity he advocates policies that could be described as none other than socialism by stealth. Surely there has not been a more ridiculous claim in recent years from the unions to use government to dictate where one industry must procure such an integral part of its operations, steel. Although, I do believe to be left leaning in your politics stems from an inability to properly integrate economic history with current events. 

Unintended consequence! Sometimes it is so obvious maybe it is intended.

Mr Howes economic genius was best expressed on a recent MTR segment on the 23rd of August featuring Steve Price and known conservative Andrew Bolt. Mr Howes expressed the view that if we had the Resource Tax on mining in place, the dollar could be down and allow our steel to remain somewhat competitive. His basic message is he wishes to use government to punish companies for productivity and reward those who do not compete via government enforced redistribution. 

Mr Bolt engaged in a futile back and forth where Mr Howes was unable to have the consequences of his economics explored in full. Mr Bolt was able to ask some questions but they were readily dismissed by Mr Howes as he continued his Rant on protectionism.

Mr Bolts questions boiled down to these two essentials questions: