A lot of new data for BludgerTrack to play with this week, with Galaxy conducting its first national poll since the election, ReachTEL turning in its big-sample monthly robopoll for the Seven Network, Essential reliable as ever for its fortnightly rolling average, and Newspoll unloading its quarterly aggregates featuring state breakdowns (although none of this contributes anything new on leaders’ ratings). The Galaxy result was at the high end of the Coalition’s recent form in putting them even with Labor on two-party preferred, which has had the effect of reining in Labor’s lead from 51.8-49.1 to 50.9-49.1, and caused them to lose their majority on the seat projection. Labor is down one seat each in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. The big change on the primary vote is that the Greens have taken a hit after steadily inflating to a post-election high in last week’s result, the result of mediocre showings from Galaxy and ReachTEL, which have traditionally been quite strong for them. After applying bias adjustments, these are two of the four worst results for the Greens out of 32 results this year. I would think statistical randomness a more likely explanation for this than genuine responsiveness to anything that’s happened on the political stage of late, and while the high of last week was very probably inflated, it is equally likely that this an over-correction.
Zoidy
Because you suggested all outsourcing was bad.
The Health system has developed a very well run public and private health system.
The Health system is one of this countries success stories.
That is not to say its perfect but its a better than most other systems.
Cranky
“You can put lipstick on a Pig but it is still a Pig. Once the CO2 Tax is Terminated, the ALP will not go to the next election with a CO2 Tax (they weren’t last time, apparently) or an ETS or anything else except maybe “reassessing” the Direct Action program.”
The rest of the world is moving to an ETS-style system. We will follow suit or cop trade tariffs.
Direct action is A centrally planned system. Can’t believe you would work in opposition to market forces.
Astrobleme @1731
MRRT specifically and CO2 Tax (indirectly for most except the largest miners who pay) increase costs. They therefore reduce the Net Present Value of any investment decision.
I know you are some sort of scientist – you clearly don’t understand finance.
@MB/1751
Point me to where I said “all”, or have you been as selective as cranky?
Zoidy 1727 was about the badness of outsourcing.
We will just wait and see just how much sting the MRRT and CT will have for the conservatives come 2016.
Both are a fading memory and played little or no part in the Senate election. All those votes flooding into the Greens who are just so….anti the CT and MRRT. And so potent were these two that the Liberal vote dropped 5.5% – even more than the Labor vote – its lowest in a generation – while as William has noted, the National vote all but disappeared.
Of course, these inconvenient bits of stuff are glossed over by the Liberal cheer squad.
While all the attention is on “how bad” Labor has done, it is clear, as Probyn says in the West, that the LNP/Abbott et al have nothing to cheer about, and as we have known for six months now, this is among the worst performing and least popular new governments for some time.
The current Oz wide polls say it all.
While the LNP is government is sad for Oz, it does give some cheer to its opponents in that while the so-called “Labor brand” is on the nose, so say, it is the conservative dominoes which are next to fall – Victoria; a battering in store in Queensland – if Palmer is true to form; a roughing up in NSW and Abbott at risk of being a one-termer Federally.
As the West put it this morning, the high water mark for the conservatives is long gone.
I see, incidentally, that the Libs locally, are back to using their “big picture” ads on TV – at tax payer expense – to tell us how well off we are in Sandropia.
Things must be getting desperate in the Liberal camp these days when they dig out ads from nearly 12 months ago. Ironically, the skiting is mostly to do with projects either started by Labor or paid for by Labor when in office.
Hypocrisy coupled with spin.
The Looting of the Ukraine
____________ by Vraig Paul Roberts
Former US AST Tresurer Roberts looks at what he calls”the looting of the Ukraine” by the IMF and the Western banks under the guidance of the US and the EU “aid”
Already huge increases in gas prices and a 50% cut in the meagre pensions will make the poor bear the full bruden of”fiscal reform”(Joe Hockey stuff!!)and make the lives of people miserable and cold and desperate
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/bb/showthread.php?t=282656
briefly @1740
[But in any case, why shouldn’t the public charge extractors for the opportunity to exploit publicly-owned resources? ]
That already happens – Royalties, to the rightful owners – the States.
@MB/1755
Firstly, I did not say ALL.
Secondly, you have now change your wording to “badness”.
I do wish you make up your mind.
CC
[Think Big @1729 – You can put lipstick on a Pig but it is still a Pig.]
But you are arguing it’s a cow.
“except maybe “reassessing” the Direct Action program.”
Direct action is outright fraud like most Coalition policies. It will be quietly dropped before the next election because even the Tories don’t believe in it: it costs a fortune to do nothing and it is plain embarrassing.
[– The existence of the MRRT is a drag on new investment]
Not at all true – shows a total ignorance of the tax.
Cranky
“MRRT specifically and CO2 Tax (indirectly for most except the largest miners who pay) increase costs. They therefore reduce the Net Present Value of any investment decision.
I know you are some sort of scientist – you clearly don’t understand finance.”
Well MRRT comes in well after the project has started… So that will not affect anything. And only when profits are large. It is kind of mad to say that because a projects profits will only be ‘large’ as opposed to ‘massive’ that the project won’t get up. I challenge you to give an example of a project that failed to get up due to the MRRT.
As I said earlier the commodities that have slowed the mining sector down have nothing to do with the MRRT. In fact the ones that are making the most are those affected by the MRRT.
Also check the effect of the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax… Boy didn’t that stop the LPG industry. NOT.
The opposition to the MRRT is from rich miners. Doesn’t affect small players.
Also, didn’t your best mate Colin just increase Royalties? Yet you’re not whining about them closing the industry.
Your problem is that you can’t isolate the issue and view it outside your political bias.
Zoidy
No i have not changed any words, you wrote about how wrong outsourcing is and how it cost jobs as you have done previously so you clearly are anti outsourcing which is fine but i also think its fair to recongise that sometimes outsourcing does bring benefits.
“That already happens – Royalties, to the rightful owners – the States.”
Ohhhh but wait, “Drag on invetsment”
You have no ability to think things through beyond your partisan experience.
[That already happens – Royalties, to the rightful owners – the States.
]
Royalties however do have a potential negative outcome on investments in marginal projects – unlike a resource rent tax.
Asto @1752 I don’t support Direct Action and think it should be dumped along with the RET.
Trade tarrifs? The EU tried that one on – and failed miserably.
@MB/1763
Yes you have chance words, now I am asking you to apologize for something I never mentioned, or said anything about every single outsourcing is bad (i.e. “ALL”) is what you said to me, I said that larger projects have have always had trouble outsourcing as it does nothing to fix the problem that wasn’t there in the first place.
I mentioned few of them.
Clive after Newman
The @theqldpremier should resign over claims he demanded $5k for a meeting when Brisbane Lord Mayor tinyurl.com/pfyykhd #qldpol #auspol
[1749….Astrobleme]
Even though Chinese steel production has been scarcely growing this year, Australian shipments to China (and other markets) have been increasing. Australia’s apparent share of the Chinese market is expanding, reflecting its quality – a relatively high iron content and very low sulfur content.
Increasing the use of Australian imports while reducing the take-up of locally-produced ore is enabling Chinese mills to achieve improved energy consumption and reduce their atmospheric pollution. This is also supporting the price of sea borne ore even though supply has expanded many times over in the last decade.
These market-driven dynamics undermine the specious claims made about the tax system in relation to the iron industry. We should take note that in 2001 iron ore mining constituted 0.7% of Australian GDP. It now easily exceeds 5% and is going to continue to grow though less quickly than in the last decade. The economic case says the investment needed to sustain this production will not be deterred at all by the MRRT as it’s now structured.
But so much for economics. The politics says the iron ore business – Australia’s largest export earner – is untaxable. It is crazy.
Zoidy i have never read a post from you in which you have been in anyway positive about outsourcing.
@CC/1766
Removing RET would only save $15 per household, you can look it up in the last review.
Palmer’s on the job. He wants to see the emd of Can-Do.
[Clive Palmer @CliveFPalmer 43m
The @theqldpremier should resign over claims he demanded $5k for a meeting when Brisbane Lord Mayor https://tinyurl.com/pfyykhd #qldpol #auspol]
Astro @1762
We don’t get to see the private pre-exploration and pre-FEED decision making on projects so your request for specific evidence is a Red Herring but it defies logic to deny that increased costs do not have any impact on investment decisions.
PRRT was put in place because much of the industry was not paying royalties – a completely different scenario to the MRRT. Additionally, gas in WA is generally subject to a domestic gas reservation policy.
The increase in Royalites applied only to fines and was removing an anomoly where fines were previously subject to a lower rate than lump. I thought you worked for an Iron Ore Miner?
[Zoidy i have never read a post from you in which you have been in anyway positive about outsourcing.]
It is a very hard subject for anyone to be positive about.
WWP
Depends on what basic it is outsourced and i can think of a few poor examples JSA being one PT another but there are times when outsourcing does bring benefits.
WWP @1765 And the short coming of an MRRT is that if no or little profit is made, then the State gets nothing. I acknowledge Royalties aren’t perfect but they do at least mean we get paid for someone taking the resource – even if they don’t make a profit.
Compact Crank@1758
Rightful owners? Actually, “the Crown”.
Wasn’t there a case to work out if that referred to the Commonwealth “Crown” or the States “Crown”.
I would bet on the Commonwealth winning that.
[PRRT was put in place because much of the industry was not paying royalties – a completely different scenario to the MRRT]
Royalties should be replaced by mrrt – mrrt is preferable in almost every way. It is why we have a prrt and not a royalty scheme.
For Judas it was 30 pieces of silver….. Newman comes cheaper ( relative)
[1758
Compact Crank
briefly @1740
But in any case, why shouldn’t the public charge extractors for the opportunity to exploit publicly-owned resources?
That already happens – Royalties, to the rightful owners – the States.]
And?
The LNP wants to repeal the MRRT as it applies to two commodities – iron ore and coal – but not to the third CSG. Are you going to call for the repeal of Royalties too?
The LNP position is opportunist. It is not based on the economics of the situation or any notions of equity. It is simply about low-road politics. This is feeble-minded and, in terms of the proper development of tax policy and the management of the economy, very short-sighted.
So that make Judas better value.
@MB/1770
And for good reason.
1) Privatization leeds to outsourcing and other disasters.
2) Outsourcing leeds to job losses and other worker related conditions.
The privatization French Telecom is still having issues today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584300/Ten-French-employees-telecoms-giant-Orange-committed-suicide-far-year-reasons-explicitly-related-jobs.html
After it was privatized in 2004.
Crank
“deny that increased costs do not have any impact on investment decisions”
It’s not an increased cost until well after they’re making a big profit. How could that affect the decision? Explain how this would affect the decision. It’s like saying I would refuse to take a higher paying job because I would pay more tax. It makes no sense.
I thought Colin increased the royalties as that would reduce the MRRT comapnies paid? Maybe I had that wrong.
“PRRT was put in place because much of the industry was not paying royalties”
Wow… http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/1940.aspx
CC –
So the MRRT has to go because it’s an additional cost that is ‘killing mining investment’.
But royalties, despite being an additional cost (that Barnett increased, and which you have defended) are apparently perfectly fine and presumably don’t factor into mining investment at all in your mind.
And the problem with MRRT is that it is killing mining investment while not collecting enough revenue!
What a wonderful world CC-land must be where black is white and up is down.
Zoidy So do i take that as confirmation that you are anti outsourcing because you have been very constant in opposing it.
[1777…bemused]
It is not really open to dispute: States own the resources. This is why the Commonwealth attempts to levy profits and the States can apply Royalties that are calculated with respect to both price and volume.
briefly @1769
[untaxable]
Complete bollocks – who says that?
BHPB is the single largest taxpayer in Australia paying about $9 Billion in Company Tax annually. They pay Royalties, GST, Payroll tax etc.
The facts are:
1. The MRRT is an abject failure.
2. If you want an MRRT then you first need to solve the States’ Royalties ownership situation and be able to negotiate the change from State based Royalties to Federal MRRT, takign the States with you – something the Rudd-Gillard government failed to even attempt.
[1783
Astrobleme
I thought Colin increased the royalties as that would reduce the MRRT comapnies paid? Maybe I had that wrong.]
Newman increased coal royalties several times over to ensure that the coal industry would not be paying any MRRT. In the end, the higher royalty revenues have been relayed to other states via HFE, so the only losers have been the coal miners.
bemused @1777 – you may wish it were so but the Constitution and High Court differ – the States own the resources and the Royalties.
@MB/1785
So you going to label me, just because I am against something?
Is this a new thing on PB? or is this a new prejudice?
I am against outsourcing but not anti-outsourcing.
The benefits are not there, especially when you are outsourcing large departments, organizations, state-owned companies.
And that is what I am saying all along.
So Cranky, basically your thesis is: BHPB pay even, leave the poor blighters alone…
Not sure that really cuts it.
So did the MRRT put an end to South Flank?
CC –
So the hundreds of millions of dollars it is collecting this year mark an “abject failure”, and a party that bleats about “restoring the budget to surplus” is happy to just forgo that revenue in future. Hypocrites.
ie don’t ever bother to try to change and improve this system because the states will never voluntarily relinquish any part of their powers/control.
I don’t know why the conservatives are allowed to get away with it.
MRRT=PRRT under another name that Hawke Keating brought in.
When is Abbott going to repeal the PRRT?
briefly@1786
Did that case ever proceed?
I think it is open to dispute and the Commonwealth would win as its Crown is bigger. 😛
Seriously though, States can be played off against each other and indeed, some are silly enough to actually initiate that race to the bottom.
A profits based tax, levied by the Commonwealth, is much better.
[1787
Compact Crank
briefly @1769
untaxable
Complete bollocks – who says that?]
On the face of it, the LNP says just that. According to the the LNP, the iron ore industry must not be taxed, though the CSG industry can and will be taxed using the MRRT.
[BHPB is the single largest taxpayer in Australia paying about $9 Billion in Company Tax annually. They pay Royalties, GST, Payroll tax etc.]
I bet that BHP-B pays no GST!
[The facts are:
1. The MRRT is an abject failure….]
The MRRT is a political millstone around the necks of the ALP, and an enormous gift the LNP.
@buzzaussie: Opposition leader Bill Shorten cancels work engagements after the death of mum Dr Ann Shorten | News… http://t.co/JUMFtD6grx
What a brazen, disgusting misuse of one’s office! Newman must go.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-07/icac-hotels-association-ceo-paul-nicalou-gives-evidence/5372554 …
Sad to hear Bill Shorten’s mother has passed away
briefly@1795
It needn’t be and a price on carbon needn’t be either.
When Abbott starts ranting about any tax or other revenue raising measure, he should be pressed on what is his plan to make up the revenue foregone? What new taxes? Who will pay them? What rates? What services will be cut? etc.
This should be pursued relentlessly.
[1794…bemused]
This was the basis of Twiggy’s claim in the HC, which was lost.
As it happens, I think a profits-based tax is not a resource rent at all. If the only thing that was taxed were profits, very-low margin mines could be run to the point of total depletion and the public would get nothing (I know it’s an extreme example). The concept of mineral rent reflects the reality that disposing of the minerals in the present means we forgo the opportunity to dispose of them in the future. That is, their sale necessarily carries unforeseeable opportunity costs.
Since we can only sell the resources once, so we MUST get something worth having when that occurs, even if that means we must wait for the right opportunity. We have to charge “enough” to cover those future opportunity costs even if that means current profits are reduced.