Menzies House

A Free Lunch For All

Alex Davidson notes Gillard's dangerous attack on private property rights:

"And here's the rub. You don't own the minerals. I don't own the minerals. Governments only sell you the right to mine the resource. A resource we hold in trust for a sovereign people. They own it and they deserve their share."

- Gillard addressing the Minerals Council of Australia's annual dinner.

This will have to go down as one of the most inflammatory, dangerous proclamations ever made by an Australian prime minister. It is a direct attack on the very heart and soul of peaceful society – respect for property rights – and little different to the rhetoric we used to hear coming from the communist leaders of Russia, China, and Cambodia.

It's obvious that the minerals in the ground don't belong to 'all Australians' at all, as Julia and her communist comrades continually assert. Most are in fact un-owned, and the rest are in fact owned by the companies and individuals who became the first owner by exercising ownership rights over them, or who have subsequently purchased them. In just society, ownership does not arise through decree.

In order to defend their strident assertions, Gillard and her supporters must answer some basic questions about how this presumptive ownership came about. Was it through contract and consent, or by declaration? Was it through being the first to exercise ownership rights over resources that were previously un-owned, or taking no action at all? And precisely when does one qualify for joint ownership of this resource - at birth; on becoming a citizen, an adult, or a taxpayer? Surely too, if this notion of ownership was in fact true ownership, shouldn’t we be able to trade our share in the loot when we decide to leave Australia for greener pastures? And what about new immigrants – shouldn’t they be required to pony up for their share in it?

What Gillard is really talking about here is communism – society based not on individuals and private ownership, but on the collective and public ownership of everything, where all decisions about the use of economic resources are made by a powerful, privileged elite who call themselves the government. While the free lunch brigade may have no problems with this, in the end we all suffer, because communism stands for the abolition of property rights, and with it, the abolition of capitalism – the very pillars of prosperity, freedom, and peaceful society.

Alex Davidson is a retired businessment and President of 5 Acres Now

Defence Force Eyes Mining Infrastructure

David Elson discusses the latest battle between Julia Gillard and the mining industry through a national security prism: 

With the results of an upcoming Australian Defence Force posture review likely to recommend that more defence assets are held in the resource rich north of Australia, it’s important that the Australia Federal Government balances the laudable yet differing goals of national security and continued growth in the resource sector.  There is potential for conflict between their need for but diverge use of infrastructure in the region  i.e.; ports, rail, and airfields.

Clearly there is a need from a national security perceptive for defence assets to be relocated from the populous and relatively well defended Port of Sydney to the more sparsely populated and resource rich north; particularly with the advent of the Chinese Century and corresponding rise and rise of other Asian powers who benefit from and trade with the People’s Republic of China.  Countries within the Asia pacific are using their newfound economic prosperity to fuel the growth of their military power projection capabilities.  While no single country presents a clear danger to Australia’s nation security and most regional powers are large trade partners of Australia, it is understandably prudent for Australia to show that we are serious about defending our borders.

However it is important that the expansion of defence force operations into areas either unattended entirely by the ADF or attended only by a bare base force take into consideration other users of land, sea and airspace, in particular in terms of the use of existing state and privately owned commercial infrastructure.  It is important that proposed ADF future use of rail lines or commercial ports not disrupt or supplant existing private uses.  Some of the statements of the Australia Federal Government would seem to imply that they would be prepared to nationalise or legislate that ADF use of mining infrastructure take priority over other users.

There is a real risk here that the government might mismanage and fail to balance divergent interests in the region (merely look at the impact of their policies on live cattle trade). The irony here is that military assets are proposed to be relocated to protect the resource rich north, but that they will be leveraging of existing infrastructure rather than investing in military specific infrastructure. In effect the ADF “posture change” has the potential to hamper and disrupt the growth of resource sector they are obstinately moving to protect.

Continued economic growth through a free and unfettered market is essential to ensuring Australia’s prosperity and like our Asian neighbours is the key to funding any future improvements in our ADF’s force projection capabilities.  Decisions likely to have a negative impact on this core objective should be avoided. Else we learn the lesson currently being experienced by USA, where a large military and large military spending is starting to be cut back due to a decline in economic growth.

David Elson is a senior public servant who has long taken an interest in the economic impact of Federal policies particularly those pertaining to environmental or social issues and in the cultures of Australia's Asian neighbours.  He lives in Brisbane, Queensland with his Taiwanese wife and is an avid squash player.

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.