ANUgate update

The Australian has entered into the debate with a magnificent cartoon from Bill Leak and a longer piece by Paul Kelly.

When Abbott issues a rallying cry it is unmistakable. And he ­issued such a cry this week. His ­aggressive strategy rests on two propositions: that coal is economical and that it is ethical. This position will reverberate across Australia’s society and economy, with consequences for coal, gas, industry, jobs, living standards and environmental politics.

Abbott’s message is that if you want jobs, cheap energy and economic prosperity then you must oppose the ideological campaign to close down fossil fuels as soon as possible in the cause of renewables.

Yet the anti-fossil fuel ideological campaign is on a roll. In its comment this week on the Australian National University’s decision to divest of shares in seven ­resources companies for ethical reasons, Greenpeace nailed the real issue: the sums involved were “pocket money” but “the divestment movement’s real power lies in its ability to stigmatise the fossil fuel industry”.

It is a method of delegitimisation. The ANU’s decision is an open invitation to stigmatise Australian coal and gas companies.

Pearson agrees with Greenpeace, saying the problem “is the reputational damage and this is why it must not go unanswered”.

Much of the commentary this week has been naive. Given the conflict, it is idle to think Abbott would not attack the decision.

Intellectual elites form a very privileged set in our society and when those elites – described by Paul Kelly as being:

… a loose yet growing coalition typically seen as including the Greens; a collection of non-governmental org­anisations, veterans such as Greenpeace, the Graeme Wood Foundation (with Wood having made the largest campaign don­ation in our political history to the Greens) and the Australia Institute; climate change activists in unions, universities and social media; foundations, wealthy individuals, philanthropists with deep pockets; and the margins of the Christian churches.

decide to start trashing the productive capacity of the economy it is very naive to believe that the government will not get involved. Indeed government exists precisely to restrain this sort of social disorder. As Schumpeter explained intellectuals have an incentive to attack their host society and capitalism in particular and it is difficult for a liberal democracy to rein them in. Paul Kelly makes a similar argument.

The AFR editorial ties in very nicely with the Bill Leak cartoon.

ANUgate

The money involved in the ANU’s divestment is small. But there are three big principles involved.

First, there is the sheer self-indulgence in trashing industries on which society materially depends, so that some can feel ­better. …

Second, we need a more rational and less knee-jerk approach to insuring ourselves against man-made climate change.

Right now we have almost no climate policy worth the name. This is precisely because we took as a nation, the grandstanding approach exemplified in miniature by the ANU, charging out in front with the world’s biggest carbon tax. This essentially worked through the electricity system and imposed high costs on Australian consumers and industry. But when we looked around, no one was following. Support for a carbon tax then politically collapsed.

Thirdly, academics should not be advocates or activists.

University leaderships should be at the centre of rationality in society, that is, calmly working out the extent of problems like climate change and not letting activists take the wheel.

That last point is important – the ANU episode reveals a deep and profound corporate governance problem within the university sector. That such a deeply flawed decision could be made suggests the presence of profound group-think at the upper reaches of an institution that is in receipt of substantial sums of taxpayer dollars. Education Minister Pyne has not done much – not that I can see – about university governance, but he is proposing to give those some institutions much greater powers to do their own thing. Deregulating the university sector is a good thing – ensuring the sector has adequate internal control mechanisms to restrain this sort of behaviour would be an even better thing.

This entry was posted in Divestment, Education. Bookmark the permalink.

146 Responses to ANUgate update

  1. goatjam

    Abbott’s message is that if you want jobs, cheap energy and economic prosperity then you must oppose the ideological campaign to close down fossil fuels as soon as possible in the cause of renewables.

    So, we can expect the RET to be abolished next week then? Good news indeed.

  2. Notafan

    ANU should remove every vestige of fossil fuels from campus now, not just deal a token blow by selling off a few shares,
    Lectures in hemp tents and pit latrines now!

  3. Alfonso

    Abbott needs counselling. CAGWarming is so dangerous billions need to be spent “abating” CO2 while in the other half of his brain “you must oppose the ideological campaign to close down fossil fuels as soon as possible in the cause of renewables”.
    He thinks the Tradies don’t notice?

  4. Rabz

    Support for a carbon tax then politically collapsed.

    This “support” of which he speaks never existed in the first place. FFS, Kelly is a muddling mediocrity.

  5. brinkin

    The academics havnt figured it out yet, deregulated means having to recruit fee paying students, parents actually pay the fees and they are not likely to pay to send their kids to a uni with an academic staff noted for ratbag left wing appearances in the media supporting every mad cause. The inevitable result will be firm control or suspension of these idiots, they may think they are unsackable, but they can be suspended without pay for years. This will really hurt as most have no money earning capacity outside of academia, those who can do, those that cant teach.

  6. the ANU episode reveals a deep and profound corporate governance problem within the university sector. That such a deeply flawed decision could be made suggests the presence of profound group-think at the upper reaches of an institution that is in receipt of substantial sums of taxpayer dollars.

    I cannot think of a better reason for an education voucher system. It’s time to get the market to haul these troglodytes running the Universities back to reality and their proper place in society.

  7. Ellen of Tasmania

    That such a deeply flawed decision could be made suggests the presence of of profound group-think at the upper reaches of an institution that is in receipt of substantial sums of taxpayer dollars.

    Therein lies the problem and it will continue to be a problem while those tax dollars keep coming.

    People who really care, care with their own time, lifestyle and money.

  8. Kenny

    Paul Kelly writes that a part of the groups arguing for divestment are church group. The loudest arguing environmental action has always been the Uniting Church. So how is preaching environmentalism rather than Jesus going for the Uniting Church???

    According to the National Church Life Survey, attendance at Uniting churches dropped 11% from 1991 to 1996, 11% from 1996 to 2001 and 40% from 1991 to 2011. So it looks like a trend of losing 11% every 5 years for 20 years. The surveys show the Uniting church are losing attenders faster than any other church. A church that had 250,000 attending in 1977 now has 97,000 and if the 20 year trend contines will be under 40,000 attendeer by 2050. The average adult attendance at a Uniting Church is currently 40, down from over 100 in the 1970s.

    What has caused such a dramatic long term decline, and a decline larger than all other churches?

  9. H B Bear

    That such a deeply flawed decision could be made suggests the presence of profound group-think at the upper reaches of an institution that is in receipt of substantial sums of taxpayer dollars.

    Could easily be talking about the ALPBC. Same problem, different building.

  10. Ant

    “Right now we have almost no climate policy worth the name. ”

    And?

  11. Old Salt

    Concur with Goatjam – we should honour the existing RET contracts but should not approve any further taxpayer funded constructions until the renewables are commercially viable.

  12. Boambee John

    To paraphrase a comment over on Tim Blair:

    “Of course there is a lot of knowledge in universities. The first year students each bring a bit in, and the graduates take a lesser amount amount out. The difference accumulates in the university.”

  13. First, there is the sheer self-indulgence in trashing industries on which society materially depends, so that some can feel ­better. …

    Not really, Sinc.
    My wife and I got out of fossil fuel stocks because ethical investments were performing better.
    They continue to do so.
    Besides I have children, and I’m interested in their future.
    I would have had one more child (a daughter) but the consequences of disregard for the environment as exemplified by the catastrophic use of defoliants in Vietnam put paid to that.
    The amoral corporate mindset that sold defoliants to be used indiscriminately in a war zone is exactly the same mindset that inhabits the fossil fuel industry.
    They can’t be trusted to care for anything but their bottom line.

  14. 'S

    The quote from greenpeace is funny in light of the millions they lost recently.

  15. DrBeauGan

    I’ve known half a dozen vice chancellors of Australian universities. One was moderately bright and fairly well educated. The rest somewhat less so. The best brains in universities wouldn’t want the job. Look who you have to mix with.

  16. MemoryVault

    but should not approve any further taxpayer funded constructions until the renewables are commercially viable.

    FIFY

    Solar and wind can never be “commercially viable” in a fixed-frequency,
    supply-on-demand grid network.
    Get over it.

  17. john constantine

    The greenfilth have rammed home the “fracking causes cancer” narrative so hard that no party that supports non-conventional gas can win the victorian election.

    Heard one of their abc groupthinkers a while back, going for the throat of a public relations officer who was supporting the victorian onshore oil and gas industry.

    The abc hive mind heard “onshore” and assumed with all of the abc goodness and greatness, that onshore drilling meant drilling on the actual sands of a beach shoreline.She simply could not process the concept that onshore/offshore were the terms used to distinguish land based and sea based drilling rigs. the level of emotionally/ritually/cult derived mentality.

  18. johanna

    Dr BG – quite right, they’re politicians first and last.

    No academic with a real commitment to their work would give it up for the flummery of being the VC. In fact, the ones that I have met could not think of anything worse.

  19. notafan

    I have four children, one of whom works for big oil.
    The patronage of assuming that other people don’t care for their children’s future, and that their children don’t care.

  20. JC.

    we should honour the existing RET contracts but should not approve any further taxpayer funded constructions until the renewables are commercially viable.

    Why, you doofus. Why should we honor any fraudulent contract? Fuck them. Let the windmills go to rust and leave them there as a example to others. And let the plastic panels degrade.

  21. siltstone

    Will ANU and other self righteous entities now decline to take donations from people who work in coal, oil and gas? To the extent that such entities receive monies from State governments from time to time, will they return the proportion derived from coal, oil and gas royalties? To the extent that such entities receive monies from the Commonwealth government from time to time, will they return the proportion derived from company tax on coal, oil and gas industries?

  22. JC.

    There’s a real serious problem going on that if the Libs had any testicles would deal with immediately.

    The subsidies to the renew ball subsidy whores allows these bastards to get away with the big lie that renew balls are economically efficient and that we should be migrating away from coal and gas. This is a serious problem as the subsidies are complex and most people don’t really understand how it gets imbedded into the price of energy. They know electricity is expensive as they pay the bills but don’t understand the cancer that is causing the high cost.

    They have to get rid of the subsidies asap so that there’s no more hiding. They shouldn’t just get rid of them going forward, but if at all possible should walk away from the present agreement. Just renege. If the whores sue, then let them sue the government… ie the taxpayer and it gets out into the open as to the damage these vermin are causing.

  23. Snoopy

    For a start Abbott should terminate the whole concept of gift deductible recipient status. If you wish to donate, fine, but you shouldn’t expect your warm fuzzies to be underwritten by others.

  24. There’s a real serious problem going on that if the Libs had any testicles would deal with immediately.

    There’s your problem, JC.

  25. JC.

    Yea I know Winston.

    The ideal wauy to get these scum out into the open is to renege on their conracts and let them sue the government as that will clearly show the punters just what thieving scum they are

  26. Peter from SA

    Privatise universities … then the management can be accountable as company Directors.

  27. johanna

    Same goes for union super funds, JC.

    There is a lot at stake here, and they will fight to the death.

  28. Bruce of Newcastle

    The Australian is right on the money today with strong articles from Graham Lloyd, Paul Kelly and the editorial too.

    I read Mr Kelly’s article just now, and he is trying really hard to stay on the centre, but its clear he thinks the ANU divestment decision is stupid and dangerous, to them and to the country. My opinion from reading hundreds of Paul Kelly articles over the years is he is personally slightly centre-left, but works very hard to remain a neutral arbiter. If you have lost Paul Kelly you are fucked.

    I hope Shorten reads the article for his own sake. Otherwise he will be equally fucked.

  29. johno

    Education Minister Pyne has not done much – not that I can see – about university governance, but he is proposing to give those some institutions much greater powers to do their own thing. Deregulating the university sector is a good thing – ensuring the sector has adequate internal control mechanisms to restrain this sort of behaviour would be an even better thing.

    Agree, but, while the ANU is established under Cwth Legislation, the other government universities are established under State law and State governments would need to get involved to fix their governance.

    Privatising the damn lot would be the best option. There is simply no justification for universities to be run by the State. Helps to explain much of the crap that they teach.

  30. Leo G

    “WITH his statement that coal is “essential for the prosperity of Australia” and “essential for the prosperity of the world”, Tony ­Abbott has declared political war on the green activist campaign to shut down Australia’s cheap ­energy sectors and undermine our competitiveness.

    There are many lessons from the Rudd-Gillard failures over climate change.
    The most important, for both sides, is the need for rationality, and trying to put the fossil fuel sector on the swiftest road to extinction is plain irrational.” – Paul Kelly

    Kelly makes the mistake of assuming that the underlying issue for those on one side of this debate is ethical-environmental and that on that basis their position is irrational. In fact, their position appears far more rational when you assume that the underlying issue is ideological-political, and that the target is the prosperity of free market economies.

  31. H B Bear

    Biggles is really pushing the ANU’s social licence to absorb taxpayer funding.

  32. 1735099

    There is nothing so entertaining as the Right’s wails of outrage when individuals and institutions exercise their right to decide what they do with their investments.
    It reveals a number of assumptions – that individuals don’t know what’s good for them, that corporations have a right to exploit, and that institutions should ignore their stated values.
    But most amusing of all is so-called libertarians railing against free choice.

  33. Bruce of Newcastle

    There nothing so entertaining as the Left’s wails when publicly funded organisations are defunded because they choose to be partisan.

    I am quite sure ANU could raise vast amounts of money to fund their ideology from the wealthy progressives wishing to support the cause. Starting with Numbers.

    As for me I do not want to pay taxes towards an organisation which is demonstrably unhinged.

  34. But most amusing of all is so-called libertarians railing against free choice.

    I’m all for free choice, lets cut all energy regulation and generation subsidies, we’ll see what everyone freely chooses.

  35. Rob MW

    “But most amusing of all is so-called libertarians railing against free choice.” – Totally agree digits.

    The Government should claw back taxpayer donations to the universities and let the taxpayer make up their own minds of how much they wish to donate, if anything; and the total deregulation of the universities so they are free to stand on their own two feet and therefore free of any “………so-called libertarians railing against free choice.”

    In the meantime, and if it is all the same to you, the so-called libertarians can rail against any government regulated and taxpayer funded sanatorium they fucking well like.

  36. H B Bear

    Spud’s stupidity makes it very difficult to scroll past without abusing him.

  37. I’m all for free choice, lets cut all energy regulation and generation subsidies

    Absolutely – let’s start with the diesel subsidy.

    [I’m sure that I’ve explained to you on more than one occasion that there is no diesel subsidy in Australia. As such I would appreciate you updating your views and commentary on the matter. Sinc]

  38. Bruce of Newcastle

    There is no diesel subsidy, since that fuel is used off-road and the diesel taxes are for road construction and maintenance. There is a biodiesel subsidy. Also biodiesel is despoiling the natural environment as jungle is cleared for palm oil plantaitions. And biofuels are killing poor people by increasing food prices, thereby leading to malnutrition related mortality.

    Why do green progressives like to starve poor Africans who cannot earn enough to compete with the progressives’ SUV’s?

  39. Bronson

    Good old numbers never gives up peddling a lie. It’s not a subsidy stupid!

  40. Leo G

    There is nothing so entertaining as the Right’s wails of outrage when individuals and institutions exercise their right to decide what they do with their investments.

    The ANU entertains us with a display of contempt for its founding principles and strategic plan.
    The founding aim of the ANU was to be of enduring significance to the nation, to support the development of national unity and identity, to improve Australia’s understanding of itself and its neighbours, and to contribute to economic development and social cohesion.
    The ANU’s strategic plan commits it to a manifest partnership with the national executive government and parliament, to be a unique resource and partner of real substance. How does going head-to-head on national policy manifest such a partnership?
    Moreover, how does subordinating the long-term maintenance requirements of its investment property to on-campus sustainable practice reflect ANU’s commitment to stated values?

  41. Joe

    Numbers are you being mendacious?
    Have you truly no conception of the difference between publicly funded and privately funded?
    Here’s a hint, publicly funded monies are extracted – at the point of a gun – without the ability to not pay. In short it is theft.
    Therefore, it behoves those who are receiving public monies to NOT PISS OFF HALF the citizens who would rather not pay for their idiocies.
    This is why LIBERTARIANS call for the privatisation of just about all government functions. We are sick of being forced to pay for irrelevancies and idiocies.

  42. Tekweni

    Does Numbers think that using his army number provides him some sort of superiority among those who he feels have never put their hands up to defend their country? Certainly his contributions to this blog don’t demonstrate any superiority of intelligence.

  43. 3d1k

    The Guardian (of the Left) has two articles today promoting ANU and fossil fuel divestment; perhaps a few Cats could add balance to the comments section and support other like-minded commenters. Need to do more than keep this in-house – time to get sensible voices heard in this debate.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/18/fossil-fuel-divestment-climate-change-activists-take-aim-at-australias-banks

    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/17/anu-fossil-fuel-divestment-furore-proves-movement-is-no-sideshow

    It’s a war out there!

  44. Scriptman

    Do you think that if universities are deregulated that this sort of behaviour is self correcting? That is, if a Uni makes stupid decisions with its money then it will be poorer and will be able to teach fewer students. Also, it will both attract and produce lower quality students that are less capable in the private sector if its ideology permeates its teachings. Those prospective students that see the lower employment prospects of the graduates will also shun the Uni in favour of more rational Universities. A reduction in the number in quality of students will reduce the University’s standing in the community, etc.

    I suppose this depends on the government not propping them up and compensating them with additional funds. It also depends on students indoctrinated by the Uni not being rewarded with public service jobs which may seem equally as attractive to prospective students as private sector jobs.

  45. hzhousewife

    ha ha ha

    just heard some guy on the radio saying he’s withdrawing his savings of
    $250,000 from his (Big 4) bank, will be looking an “ethical” bank to keep
    his money in next week ………. I’d love to hear how he goes with that.

  46. Snoopy

    just heard some guy on the radio saying he’s withdrawing his savings of
    $250,000 from his (Big 4) bank, will be looking an “ethical” bank to keep
    his money in next week ………. I’d love to hear how he goes with that.

    He must mean Bendigo Bank.

    LOL

  47. Ant

    Keep repeating the lie, Numbnuts. The Lo Infos are always happy to swallow leftie manure.

  48. 'S

    I wouldn’t bother with the guardian, so many comments get removed because they don’t “abide by community standards”. The nonsense posted is scary when, like numbers, they mention their occupations.

  49. [I’m sure that I’ve explained to you on more than one occasion that there is no diesel subsidy in Australia. As such I would appreciate you updating your views and commentary on the matter. Sinc]

    My bad – Sinc.
    That material on the ATO website must be referring to something else entirely –

    With the removal of the carbon charge, you can claim more for ‘all other business uses’, that is, on private roads and off public roads. For example, if you acquired fuel in June 2014 and used it in an excavator on a building site, you would have claimed 31.622 cents per litre for diesel or 32.347 cents per litre for petrol. If you’ve acquired fuel for the same purpose since 1 July, you can now claim the full rate of 38.143 cents per litre for both petrol and diesel.

    And

    For heavy vehicles (with a gross vehicle mass greater than 4.5 tonnes), there are two rates. There’s one for fuel used in powering auxiliary equipment (full rate of 38.143 cents per litre applies) and the other rate for fuel used in heavy vehicles for travelling on a public road. The fuel used in a heavy vehicle for travelling on a public road is reduced by the road user charge (currently 26.14 cents per litre). The road user charge is subject to change annually although it did not increase on 1 July this year so the fuel tax credit rate for heavy vehicles for travelling on a public road remains at 12.003 cents per litre.

    If you use petrol or diesel for all your business activities (other than fuel used in heavy vehicles for travelling on public roads), you can now claim the full rate of 38.143 cents per litre. This category includes fuel used on private roads, off public roads and non-fuel use.

    Now please tell what I should call “acquiring fuel” and “claiming the full rate of 38.143 cents per litre for both petrol and diesel” if it’s not a “rebate” or “subsidy”and how the fuel is not “diesel”.

    I’m really really sorry if I’m not using the approved politically correct terminology. According to the on-line dictionary a subsidy is defined as a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.

    What part of this is not passed from government to a private industrial undertaking, for example?
    Why is it not a “subsidy”?

    [Again I’ll point you to our previous explanation:
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/02/23/public-finance-and-bureaucratic-convenience/
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/12/12/fuel-tax-credits-are-not-a-tax-concession/
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/05/12/fuel-rebate-debate-with-richard-denniss/

    I’m just wondering why you refuse to learn?

    Sinc]

  50. MemoryVault

    [I’m sure that I’ve explained to you on more than one occasion that there is no diesel subsidy in Australia. As such I would appreciate you updating your views and commentary on the matter. Sinc]

    You’re wasting your time, Doomlord. To the likes of Numbers,:
    There will always be global warming, even when temps aren’t going up.
    There will always be climate change, even when nothing much has changed.
    There will always be ocean acidification, even though seawater is a highly buffered alkaline.
    There will always be Pacific Islands in danger from rising sea levels, even though they aren’t, and
    There will always be a diesel fuel subsidy even though there isn’t.

    No point trying to argue religious dogma with a fanatical cultist.
    It’s in the book.

  51. Leo G

    The spiel from activists like 360.org’s McKibben is that if:-
    (1) global warming is an inexorable consequence of increasing CO2 emission;
    (2) natural variation does not account for any significant component of global warming;
    (3) the sensitivity of Global Warming to atmospheric CO2 level is at least as high as IPCC predictions; and
    (4) natural sequestration of CO2 is inconsequential;
    then governments will increasingly regulate emissions, and investments in coal, oil and gas will be stranded assets.
    Of course, the activists don’t draw attention to the consequences of the converse- where if any of the above conditions are “off the mark”, then it may well be renewable energy assets which are uneconomic without subsidies that are left stranded.

  52. jupes

    Second, we need a more rational and less knee-jerk approach to insuring ourselves against man-made climate change.

    Oh FFS! What man-made climate change? There is none.

  53. stackja

    jupes
    #1481265, posted on October 18, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    Second, we need a more rational and less knee-jerk approach to insuring ourselves against man-made climate change.

    Oh FFS! What man-made climate change? There is none.

    AFR is Fairfax. Fairfax says there is man-made climate change.

  54. jupes

    My opinion from reading hundreds of Paul Kelly articles over the years is he is personally slightly centre-left, but works very hard to remain a neutral arbiter.

    My opinion is that Kelly is a full-on lefty who sometimes writes articles to give the impression he is balanced but reverts to full-on lefty mode at the drop of a hat. Much like Van Onselen.

    IIRC Kelly was the clown who predicted the end of the Liberal party when Tony Abbott won the leadership. At the time he was repeating Krudd’s mantra that ‘climate change’ was the greatest moral challenge of our time or some such bullshit.

  55. Snoopy

    But you gotta admit, Jupes, that Paul Kelly makes for electrifying television.

  56. MemoryVault

    Second, we need a more rational and less knee-jerk approach to insuring ourselves against man-made climate change.

    I wholeheartedly agree.
    I suggest we employ the same strategy we use to avoid getting swallowed up by black holes.
    It’s worked a treat so far.

  57. tomix

    My opinion is that Kelly is a full-on lefty…
    +1

  58. john constantine

    diesel fuel? the pricks take my money upfront, charge me a road tax on fuel that goes nowhere near a road, in addition to charging me a fortune for each road kilometer travelled through the shire rates and registrations rort.

    then you have to beg for your own money back, after providing an interest free loan to them.

    lets charge stupidity upfront instead.you get some money back if you can fill out the rebate forms.would that money be a subsidy?.

  59. Notafan

    I don’t know how handing over your own money and then being given it back is a subsidy.
    It looks more like an interest free loan and a lot of paperwork to me.
    But lefties change the plain meaning of words all the time.
    Pity there isn’t a better way to administer diesel fuel taxes so that only those intended to pay it do.
    I wonder if diesel excise is abolished morons will run around saying everyone using diesel fuel is getting subsidised because they aren’t paying a tax.
    It was never intended that farmers and miners pay diesel fuel excise.
    I don’t pay diesel excise. I must be getting subsidised,

  60. Snoopy

    “When I use a word,’ Numbers said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

  61. Leo G

    Impenetrability. That’s his ambition.

  62. jupes

    But you gotta admit, Jupes, that Paul Kelly makes for electrifying television.

    LOL. Right up there with the Oscar Pistorius trial.

    It never ceases to amaze me that the idiot is treated as if he some kind of sage.

  63. I’m just wondering why you refuse to learn?

    I appreciate the tutorial, Sinc, but I’m not one of your students.
    I think we are at cross purposes.

    So here is the story in a nutshell. The government initially introduced an excise on diesel fuel (as a hypothecated tax) on road users to finance road maintenance.

    Yes, and as a motorist, I pay that excise if I drive a diesel. I also pay excise on unleaded, but I don’t get to claim a rebate on the cost of that fuel.

    So by definition non-road users shouldn’t pay the excise. So how to ensure that road users pay the excise and non-road users don’t?

    That’s OK – but human nature being what it is, various spivs will try to escape paying that excise. They come from the same cohort of amoral individuals that exploited the HIP. You can’t blame that on the “bureaucrats”.

    Over time different approaches have been introduced to collect the excise from road users but not from non-road users.

    Yes, to try to deal with the spivs. But unless I’m very much mistaken, there is a rebate available for on-road users of diesel – From the ATO –

    With the removal of the carbon charge, you can claim more for ‘all other business uses’, that is, on private roads and off public roads.

    At present the excise is collected from all diesel sales and then non-road users are refunded the excise. So while it looks like a subsidy and many individuals discuss it and describe it as a subsidy it isn’t a subsidy.

    OK – let’s forget for a moment what it’s called. Businesses engaged in specified activities (mining for example) can claim a refund on the fuel excise for both on-road and off-road use.
    Apparently I can’t. I run a business – obviously the wrong kind of business. These same businesses flog the daylights out of the roads I use weekly (specifically the Warrego Highway which feeds the Surat basin) by shipping all manner of heavy machinery including dongas and drill rigs along the road.
    I drive 30000kms annually on that road and contribute a fair slug through fuel excise on its upkeep and maintenance. How is it fair and just that they are reimbursed for the fuel excise?

  64. Notafan

    Heavy vehicles pay the public road user charge, they only get rebated on fuel used to power auxiliary equipment eg a refrigeration unit.
    Which is the point really; the excise is intended for the maintainence of public roads.

    I think you are wrong

  65. MemoryVault

    OK – let’s forget for a moment what it’s called. Businesses engaged in specified activities (mining for example) can claim a refund on the fuel excise for both on-road and off-road use.

    Bullshit, Numbers. The excise can only be claimed for off-road use.

    Drive onto any BHPB or RIO mine site, and you will find there are multiple fill-points for site heavy machinery and the tankers that refuel them. The companies claim the rebate on diesel pumped through these outlets. There is always a separate “light vehicle” refuelling station for light vehicles, that dispenses both petrol and diesel. The rebate is not claimed on fuel pumped from this outlet, even though the bulk of it is still used onsite, to ensure compliance with the legislation.

    These same businesses flog the daylights out of the roads I use weekly (specifically the Warrego Highway which feeds the Surat basin) by shipping all manner of heavy machinery including dongas and drill rigs along the road.

    These same businesses are contractors to the mining companies. They drive road-registered vehicles, fill up at retail fuel outlets, and pay full excise, with no rebate available, just like you and me.

    Once again, Numbers, you go out of your way to display your utter and total ignorance of real-world matters. Do you take some kind of warped pride in displaying your naivety?

  66. siltstone

    Memory Vault is 100% correct and Numbers is off with the fairies.

  67. Slayer of Memes

    I think someone also needs to explain to Numbers the difference between PRIVATE roads and PUBLIC roads….

  68. MemoryVault

    I think someone also needs to explain to Numbers the difference between PRIVATE roads and PUBLIC roads….

    TWO adjectives?
    Both starting with “p”?
    On the same night?

    A bridge too far, Slayer.

  69. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Memory Vault is 100% correct and Numbers is off with the fairies.

    Well put. I have had to keep vehicle logs to PROVE to the Australian Tax Office what percentage of the diesel fuel I buy is used on farm, and what percentage is used off – farm. Don’t ever expect any constructive comments about business from an individual, who doesn’t know what a “sole trader” is.

  70. Slayer of Memes

    True MV

    There is a chance, however (no matter how miniscule) that he might open up Google and research it for himself though.

    He does, after all, claim to be a seeker of truth (as well as a former teacher)…

  71. squawkbox

    Don’t bet on it, Slayer. He has raised precisely the same points on previous threads, had the DFR regime explained to him in easy one-syllable words that even he can understand, and generally had his arse handed to him, but still he raises the same discredited tropes again.

    As Lewis Carroll would say “He only does it to annoy, because he knows it teases.”

  72. Pete of Perth

    Numbers are you irrational or unreal?

  73. MemoryVault

    Note that, having had his credibility utterly trashed, Numbers withdrew some hours ago.
    Not to worry.
    Tomorrow, or the next day, or next week, or whenever, he will be back spouting the same drivel about “diesel fuel subsidies” as though this conversation never happened.
    Ditto for “global warming”, “climate change”, “ocean acidification”, and “rising sea levels”.

    Truth is irrelevant.
    Only the fanatical cultist “vibe” counts.

  74. Sinclair Davidson

    So explain: at the end of year when the ATO sends out all those refund cheques to individuals on their personal income tax – is that a subsidy too? Or simply returning tax payments in excess of what is legally required to have paid?

  75. I think someone also needs to explain to Numbers the difference between PRIVATE roads and PUBLIC roads….

    Given that the ATO refers specifically to fuel used on public roads as being eligible for tax credits you’d better retract that statement. From their very helpful guide –

    Fuel used for traveling on public roads
    Fuel is used for traveling when it is used for:
    propelling the vehicle along public roads, including stopping or idling in the course of the journey
    powering the functions of the vehicle that are for the purpose of traveling, such as the use of lights, brakes, power-steering and windscreen wipers

    They provide a helpful example –

    Example:
    Road user charge
    Jim’s Removalists operates four 5-tonne diesel trucks.
    All the fuel Jim acquires for the trucks is used for traveling on public roads.
    In July 2014, Jim’s Removalists acquires 10,000 litres of diesel to use in their trucks.
    With rates changing, Jim referred to page 8 for the correct fuel tax credit rate. The rate in July 2014 for fuels used in heavy vehicles for travelling on public roads is 12.003 cents per litre (which is 38.143 cents per litre, minus the road user charge of 26.14 cents per litre).
    When lodging his monthly BAS for July 2014, Jim’s fuel tax credit claim is $1,200:
    10,000 litres × 12.003 cents per litre = $1,200.

    So good ol Jim pockets $1200 of my hard earned in credits, whilst I shell out 38cpl for every litre I use as I work west. We’re both traveling on public roads to earn a quid. What’s the difference?
    So now that we’ve established that there is indeed a diesel subsidy fuel tax credit scheme for use on public roads, lets look at a few other issues –
    Is one of the most profitable industries in Australia going to collapse if it’s not subsidized? given fuel tax credits ?
    There was a public debate about giving the car industry $1.5 billion over four years but no debate on why we’re giving the mining industry around 10 billion every year.
    The fossil fuel industry also gets a massive tax break through accelerated depreciation that is rising towards $2 billion per year by 2018 to companies who again are making record profits.
    It’s interesting that some subsidies tax breaks for fossil fuel energy consumption is OK but there is wailing and gnashing of teeth about the RET.
    Look closer to home where the Queensland government has bitched about the more than $2 billion to be paid in “premium” solar feed in tariffs out to 2028. That figure (inflated as it is), ignores the fact that over the same period, the subsidy for delivering fossil fuel electricity to remote consumers will reach around $8 billion. That amounts to an average of nearly $900 a year per regional household.

    Talk about goose and gander………

  76. Econocrat

    The real rorters of the off road diesel rebate are remote indigenous communities that use diesel for power generation.

  77. So explain: at the end of year when the ATO sends out all those refund cheques to individuals on their personal income tax – is that a subsidy too? Or simply returning tax payments in excess of what is legally required to have paid?

    The bottom line is, that unless you believe that nobody should pay tax, and that government should have no part of redistribution of tax revenue, to the average punter what you call it is academic.
    I’ve paid tax since I was 15 years old – that’s over 50 years ago.
    I’ve seen plenty of highly respectable rorts in that time.
    Those with the means to employ tax dodging accountants are stealing from those who lack those means.
    Tax dodging is far worse now than when I started work in 1962, and long ago became an art form.
    The colour of the collar is irrelevant – most tax accountants are thieves.

  78. Notafan

    Jim gets back his money, not yours.
    It’s a partial rebate, the public road use component is still levied on heavy vehicles. It’s part of the rejigging that occurred when GST was introduced.
    The ATO example statest that it is a partial rebate only

    Fuel excise rejigging at introduction of gst

  79. Notafan

    It appears that the partial rebate for heavy vehicles for public road use is linked to complying with one of four environmental criteria.
    I can’t find the original rationale for doing this.
    It sounds like an early green scheme to offset higher running costs for heavy vehicles caused by inefficiencies from carbon abatement of some kind? with a partial rebate on fuel excise.

  80. Bullshit, Numbers. The excise can only be claimed for off-road use.

    In the light of the above – an apology (or at least an acknowledgement) would be classy.

  81. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Besides I have children, and I’m interested in their future.

    So is every parent here, Numbers.
    Destroying Australia’s cheap energy will not help their futures at all.

    Sinc leaves the door open for minor anthropogenic warming. Many here don’t, because of the wedge factor the Greens then introduce. Inch and mile problem.

    You are a casualty of Vietnam, Numbers. There were many. Your viewing of every contemporary event through the prism of bitterness formed at that period in your life has become an obsession requiring counselling, not blogging. Taking a few months off for that, and some personal reflection, might do you good, and would be a relief for others around here. Unresolved sadness about your daughter could explain much; any parent can sympathize.

  82. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    ps I haven’t had time to follow all the fuel excise argument, but it is a relief to see that in it Numbers doesn’t actually allude to Vietnam. Maybe he is taking a hint on this.

  83. jumpnmcar

    Technically, people employed by government don’t pay tax at all.
    They’re a net loss to consolidated revenue.

  84. It appears that the partial rebate for heavy vehicles for public road use is linked to complying with one of four environmental criteria.

    Any heavy vehicle registered since 1996 and complying with ADOs is eligible.

  85. Slayer of Memes

    Given that the ATO refers specifically to fuel used on public roads as being eligible for tax credits you’d better retract that statement.

    Alright, in light of the additional detail provided, I’ll concede that the rebate applies to vehicles used on public roads for the sole purpose of earning money for a business (including owner-operatoirs of heavy vehicles).

    So good ol Jim pockets $1200 of my hard earned in credits, whilst I shell out 38cpl for every litre I use as I work west. We’re both traveling on public roads to earn a quid. What’s the difference?

    The difference is that Jim is using his trucks as his sole means of income for himself and his business.

    Is the driving about you do in your diesel-powered Golf/Prado/Land Cruiser/whatever your sole means of income, or is it merely a means to transport yourself between sites where your income is obtained by undertaking other tasks (ie. showing teachers how to do their job, ‘consulting’)?

  86. Rabz

    So explain: at the end of year when the ATO sends out all those refund cheques to individuals on their personal income tax – is that a subsidy too?

    Allow me to explain, Sinc. According to various lobotomised leftist twats, any amount of a person’s income not rightfully resumed by the government is a subsidy.

    See The Australia Institute, the greenfilth, Goose Swansteen, Wombat Henry, et al.

  87. Leo G

    So what’s being debated? Whether the ANU diversion road is public or private?
    Numbty Dumpty falls off his losing ANU argument, and all Sinc’s forces waste their efforts putting him together once again at the site of one of his previous falls, as if they don’t recognise the same old feint intended to draw away attention.

  88. MemoryVault

    In the light of the above – an apology (or at least an acknowledgement) would be classy.

    You’re joking, right Numnuts?

    You started this by repeating your oft-made, erroneous claim that the mining industry received a diesel fuel subsidy. To support your facetious claim of a diesel fuel subsidy to the mining industry you linked to a paper titled Ending Fossil Fuel Subsidies to the Mining Industry by the Greens.

    Sinclair pointed out – again – that there isn’t a subsidy, merely a rebate of a charge levied on fuel for the maintenance of roads.

    Not to be thwarted in your attempt to publicly display your stupidity, you then quoted from an ATO webinair specifically about refunds of the carbon tax credit payable on fuel after the carbon tax legislation had been repealed on July 1, 2014, and applicable to EVERYBODY in business.

    Which of course had absolutely SFA to do with your original claim – that mining companies get paid a fuel subsidy – but that’s par for the course for you greenfilth isn’t it? NEVER admit to being wrong – just move the goalposts.

    To bolster your public display of stupidity you confused “public” and “private”road use, and even bolded your error to make sure nobody missed it. And then in an attempt to move the goalposts even further from your original erroneous claim of a diesel subsidy to the mining industry, you chucked in a quote from the ATO relating to claiming a rebate on the GST component of fuel costs – again applicable to EVERYBODY in business, and absolutely bloody nothing to do with your original alleged “diesel fuel subsidy to the mining industry”

    Having totally lost your original argument about a mythical diesel fuel subsidy and utterly failed to confuse it with a refund for GST and the rescinded carbon tax, you then once again conflated “private” and off-public” roads with public roads – and again bolded your error – and then went right back toyour original bullshit claim that mining companies get a rebate for on-road use.

    At that point I detailed precisely how it works on a mine site to specifically avoid claiming the excise on fuel used on public roads. You had no answer to that so instead you did what you greenfilth ALWAYS do – you attempted to shift the goalposts – again.

    This time you provided a link to, and a quote from, an ATO paper on fuel tax credits introduced in 2006 specifically to foster environmental initiatives in heavy vehicles used ON-ROAD for business. For good measure you threw in a comparison between yourself and Tim’s Removal Service.

    Can you see where we are now, numnuts? To try and somehow make any of this appear relevant to your original erroneous and discredited claim of a mythical diesel fuel subsidy payable to mining companies, you are now comparing your business – which isn’t mining – and your light vehicle – which apparently isn’t a diesel and is under 4.5 tonnes, with a removal business – which isn’t mining – and their vehicle – which apparently is a diesel over 4.5 tonnes, using a tax credit introduced to promote environmental initiatives, and is available to ALL businesses engaged in ON-ROAD activities using vehicles over 4.5 tonnes.

    And the REAL kicker is, despite your original claim of a diesel subsidy paid to mining companies having been so utterly and thoroughly discredited that you had to turn it into a discussion about environmentally friendly removalist trucks, you’ll be back tomorrow or next week making the SAME bullshit clams. And you wonder why you are so totally despised around here.

    The only thing that warrants an apology is your continued presence here.

    .

  89. MemoryVault

    and all Sinc’s forces waste their efforts putting him together once again at the site of one of his previous falls, as if they don’t recognise the same old feint intended to draw away attention.

    You are quite correct, Leo. However the ANU divestment thing has been done to death and it’s not as though anything is going to happen as a result.

    Abbott and his crew of spineless eunuchs managed to remain mute through the Chris Turney Antarctic Ship of Fools saga, a clear and blatant misappropriation of millions of taxpayer’s dollars via a university, not to mention the rescue costs.

    Then we had Mark Scott and the ABC, plus reporters at both the Guardian and Fauxfacts, clearly in breach of S79a of the Crimes Act with regards to the Indonesian President phone tapping, and all we heard from the grubbermint was the sound of crickets chirping.

    The only “divestment” the current bunch of crooks are interested in is “divesting” Australians of their two trillion dollars in super funds, a project now well advanced.

    That, and continuing the job of turning Australia into a total-surveillance, fascist police state, an ongoing project commenced under Fraser and continued by EVERY government since, at the behest of the Canberra Bureaucrat Mandarins, who actually run the country.

  90. You started this by repeating your oft-made, erroneous claim that the mining industry received a diesel fuel subsidy.

    The fact of the matter is the mining industry, an industry making massive profits whilst they rip up the countryside, wreck the roads, introduce drug abuse into communities where it has never emerged before, refuse to employ locals, and send large chunks of their profits offshore pays 38cpl less for fuel used off road than other Australians.
    It also turns out (despite what you claimed above and despite the abuse and name calling that accompanied your lies) that a smaller rebate applies to all businesses for fuels used on road for specific vehicles and specific purposes.

    Remember –

    Bullshit, Numbers. The excise can only be claimed for off-road use.

    No, you’d rather not…………….

    Arguments what the process is called is quite simply obfuscation, in an attempt to mask the complete immorality of this product of vested interest and crony capitalism.
    It stinks to high heaven, and most Australians agree with me.
    Of course, there’s the usual gratuitous abuse that goes with any criticism of the privileged status quo, but that’s best ignored.
    It is, however, a sure sign that you’re defending the indefensible, and any distraction is always good when you’re doing that.

    Is the driving about you do in your diesel-powered Golf/Prado/Land Cruiser/whatever your sole means of income, or is it merely a means to transport yourself between sites where your income is obtained by undertaking other tasks (ie. showing teachers how to do their job, ‘consulting’)?

    As it happens, the vehicle is a Ford Territory. It has a badge on the rear which reads TDCI so I put diesel in it for which I pay full price.

    The income I earn from this is one of four sources, including another where I do indeed market goods and hold capital stock, despite idiots on the other thread claiming it’s not a “real business”.
    What I really need is a top shonk – a tax weaseling lawyer.
    I’m sure someone here would know such a person………..

  91. egg_

    The fact of the matter is the mining industry…. introduce drug abuse into communities where it has never emerged before

    Evidence?

  92. MemoryVault

    The fact of the matter is the mining industry, an industry sometimes making massive profits, sometimes massive losses, whilst they rip up mine, then rehabilitate the countryside, wreck use the roads in mining towns, which they maintain, introduce drug abuse into communities where it has never emerged before, (like petrol sniffing in Alice Springs?), refuse have written policies to employ locals, and send large chunks of their profits offshore and even larger chunks to state and federal treasuries, pays 38cpl less exactly the same price as other primary producers for fuel used off road than other Australians.

    FIFY

  93. Evidence?

    There’s (for example) Carrington’s study –

    A leading Brisbane academic and award-winning criminologist has compared Queensland mine worker accommodation to detention centres, gulags and concentration camps.

    Queensland University of Technology School of Justice head Professor Kerry Carrington’s research with colleagues into the mining industry won the year’s top honour from the Society of Criminology last week.

    Her three-year-study – The Resource Boom’s Underbelly – explored how construction and mining camps in Queensland and Western Australia created “hot boxes of crime”.

    But I hear plenty anecdotally from parents, teachers and school principals in the Surat basin about the issue. I had a sixteen year old disclose an encounter with a pusher only a few weeks ago. I reported it, with the kid’s permission, and it was followed up.
    It’s become such a problem that the companies have introduced random testing, but the smarties are always one step ahead.
    What they don’t use, they sell to the local kids.
    Some families are so concerned that they’ve moved away.

  94. use the roads in mining towns

    Got news for you old mate – there’s no such thing anymore as a “mining town” in the Surat basin anyways.
    The workers are all FIFO or DIDO, and they live in self contained dongas out of town. The only contact they have with the ” towns” is when they arrive at the airport or drive through on the way to camp. None of the provisioning is done locally – it’s all provided by contractors who don’t buy food or supplies locally. The local economy gets SFA benefit.
    Any towns that do remain of the old style setup (e.g. Moranbah) are being bled dry as the companies lay off permanent locals on industrial awards and employ contractors. Checked the real estate valuations in Moranbah lately, have you?

    then rehabilitate the countryside

    I drive past “rehabilitated” countryside every time I head west. It ain’t. Much song and dance is made, but it is not policed.

    use the roads in mining towns, which they maintain,

    The only roads they “maintain” are on-site. The farmers get stroppy because they drag weed on to their properties because they don’t clean the trucks properly. I got lost a few months ago near Wandoan and ended up on a site access road. I found a donga with an office and went in to ask directions. I encountered three different individuals, none of whom could speak English. The fourth could (in a fashion). He was Irish. I asked him if there were any Australians on site. He said “no”. See below.

    written policies to employ locals

    Which are completely ignored. They employ quite a few people to write policies to keep the regulators happy. Said policies are uploaded to their websites and glossy brochures produced. Problem is, the regulators lack the resources and will to enforce them.
    They piss in each other’s pockets, and everyone’s happy………
    It’s a complete and utter disgrace.
    And you’ve swallowed the Koolaid.

  95. MemoryVault

    So, in summary, your original claim of a $14 billion a year diesel fuel “subsidy” to the mining companies has now morphed into a link to a study which found over two-thirds of both locals and FIFO workers were happy with existing housing arrangements, and an anecdotal claim that somebody out Chinchilla way tried to sell some dope to a kid.

    You do know what the term “moving the goalposts” means, don’t you numnuts?

    And whatever happened to poor old Tim and his removal business?
    Did he ever get his Environmental Fuel Tax Credit?
    Or was he audited by the ATO for getting his BAS wrong?

    Stay tuned folks, for the next exciting episode misdirection.

  96. Slayer of Memes

    There’s (for example) Carrington’s study

    You mean this one from 2011? A study where the only mentions of ‘drug use’ in mining communities are as follows:

    1.

    A sudden rise in disposable income can lead to higher rates of alcohol and drug abuse, gambling and other forms of conspicuous consumption and indebtedness (Doukas et al., 2008; Mayes, 2008)

    (Page 6, Paragraphh 1, Line 7)

    2.

    We have located three EISs only which acknowledge the risks that resource developments are likely to adversely impact on alcohol abuse, domestic violence and other crimes (such as assault and illegal drug use), organized prostitution, motor vehicle accidents and other accidental injury (BHP Billiton, 2009; Sunderland, 2008; Synovate et al., 2009)

    (Page 7, Paragraph 3, Line 5)

  97. MemoryVault

    The workers are all FIFO or DIDO, and they live in self contained dongas out of town.

    Which has absolutely SFA to do with your original claim of a $14 billion a year diesel subsidy to the mining industry.

    None of the provisioning is done locally

    Which has absolutely SFA to do with your original claim of a $14 billion a year diesel subsidy to the mining industry.

    The farmers get stroppy because they drag weed on to their properties

    Which has absolutely SFA to do with your original claim of a $14 billion a year diesel subsidy to the mining industry.

    I encountered three different individuals, none of whom could speak English.

    Which has absolutely SFA to do with your original claim of a $14 billion a year diesel subsidy to the mining industry.

    They employ quite a few people to write policies to keep the regulators happy.

    Which has absolutely SFA to do with your original claim of a $14 billion a year diesel subsidy to the mining industry.

    It’s a complete and utter disgrace.

    Which has absolutely SFA to do with your original claim of a $14 billion a year diesel subsidy to the mining industry.

    And you’ve swallowed the Koolaid.

    Nah. I’m a Shiraz Cabernet man myself.
    Which STILL has absolutely SFA to do with your original claim of a $14 billion a year diesel subsidy to the mining industry.

  98. Rather than quote what the smarmy Michael Roche has cherry-picked – read the whole study.

    Some relevant extracts –

    Identified long-term, cumulative and serious social and human impacts (see e.g. Carrington et al., 2010; Haslam McKenzie, 2010; Lockie et al., 2009; Petkova et al.,2009; Rolfe et al., 2007) appear to receive inadequate consideration when planning for resource projects. Recognition and/or recommendations for amelioration of potential or realized negative effects have been narrow, overlooking the depletion of social and human capital within communities directly affected by resource projects. The implications of core elements of new mining regimes – reliance on non-resident labour, dense work schedules and accommodation of the predominantly male workers in work camps – are rarely considered by industry or regulatory bodies, perhaps because of the speed with which they have seemingly become normalized features of contemporary mining regimes

    .

    And –

    With resource developers distanced from mining communities, with traditional employment relationships giving way to contract labour and collective representation of worker and community interests sidelined, and with high labour turnover and low job security in the industry, the temporal and social frame for monitoring and assessing harm and risk is inevitably attenuated.
    Block rosters, 12-hour shifts and FIFO/DIDO workforces ensuring continuous
    operations are intrinsically hostile to stable family relationships and routines, and
    viable communities, as well as female participation in the industry. Clearly these are
    not matters of pressing concern to the industry and their likely collateral harms – perhaps in broken relationships, interpersonal violence, substance abuse and other self-destructive behaviours and so on – are distanced from view and effectively extruded from prevailing conceptions of corporate responsibility. The industry may point to welcome improvements in safety and certain conditions in the workplace but this leaves as outstanding certain issues of the safety and the long-term health and well-being of workers outside the workplace and of the welfare of families and local communities. Under current conditions, fatigued DIDO workers are more likely to be killed or injured on the roads as they commute long distances either end of demanding work cycles rather than in the workplace. These are not harms and risks for which companies are likely to acknowledge any responsibility, especially as the workers may not even be employees, but they are predictable impacts of the intensified labour process, for which there is already some worrying evidence (Murray and Peetz, 2010: 36, 192–193, 218–221; Queensland Courts, Office of the State Coroner, 2011).

    He concludes –

    Post-industrial mining regimes take neo-liberal logic to an extreme, one perhaps encapsulated in the figure of the fly-in/fly-out worker – contracted, non-unionized, with bulging pay packet, compressed work roster, fragile job security and truncated family and community life. Even some within the industry question whether these regimes are sustainable in the long term, but most others pay little attention to the long term.

    In other words – in the name of the almighty dollar, every knee shall bend…………..

  99. notafan

    Love your work MV
    Poison chalice though.

  100. Repeated seven times –

    Which has absolutely SFA to do with your original claim of a $14 billion a year diesel subsidy to the mining industry.

    That repetitious use of language (oral or written) is an indicator of perseveration.
    Get help.

    And by the way, that estimation of $14 billion a year moving from the ATO to the mining sector is conservative.
    And I really don’t care what you call it.
    How about the “Rebate Ripoff”.
    RR – has a nice ring to it.
    That’s descriptive and accurate.

  101. MemoryVault

    In other words – in the name of the almighty dollar, every knee shall bend…………..

    I read all the way through your lengthy post, numnuts.

    Twice.

    Carefully.

    And STILL I couldn’t find a single statement to support your claim of a $14 billion a year diesel subsidy to the mining industry.

    Be a good lad and give me a clue.

  102. Snoopy

    As it happens, the vehicle is a Ford Territory. It has a badge on the rear which reads TDCI so I put diesel in it for which I pay full price.

    Fossil fuel criminal. Get a bicycle, you hypocrite.

  103. Snoopy

    Any towns that do remain of the old style setup (e.g. Moranbah) are being bled dry as the companies lay off permanent locals on industrial awards and employ contractors. Checked the real estate valuations in Moranbah lately, have you?

    The good citizens of Moranbah and like towns have a lot to ‘thank’ the CFMEU for.

  104. Slayer of Memes

    Rather than quote what the smarmy Michael Roche has cherry-picked – read the whole study.

    Didn’t click on my link, did you Numbers?

    If you had, you’d have seen it was a direct link to the study itself; nothing to do with any Michael Roche.

    Failure number one.

    Apropos, your claim of ‘increased drug use’. Searching the (same) study you linked I find the word ‘drug’ used four times: the two lines I pointed out above, and the use of the word in the relevant studies named in those lines.

    Again, no evidence of your assertion that mining companies “introduce drug abuse” into communities.

    Failure number two.

    Finally, neither of the two paragraphs you cut and pasted from that same study provide any evidence to support your assertion that mining companies “introduce drug abuse into communities where it has never emerged before“. Indeed, neither of them have any mention of criminal behaviour, increase or no, in them at all.

    Failure number three.

    Keep shifting those golpasts Numbers, eventually you might kick a winner…

  105. Slayer of Memes

    Should read ‘goalposts’, lest the Numerical one try to score points from a typo*…

    (* – not that he is innocent of the odd mistake himself)

  106. MemoryVault

    That repetitious use of language (oral or written) is an indicator of perseveration.

    I put it down to my stroke in 2010.
    Mind you, given that back then I couldn’t even walk or talk, let alone type, repetitively or not, I think I’m doing rather well, even if I do say so myself.
    Mind you, I’m still prone to dribbling a bit from time to time.
    The right corner of my mouth droops if I don’t concentrate.

    What’s your excuse?

  107. MemoryVault

    Should read ‘goalposts’, lest the Numerical one try to score points from a typo*…

    No biggie, Slayer.
    I’m sure numnuts would also try and shift the golpasts if he could.

  108. Bruce of Newcastle

    I really don’t know why you are going on about this Numbers. Its the law: you drive off road for business you don’t pay excise. Excise is for road maintenance and construction. Same goes for diesel used for power generation at remote sites: they get the excise back because making electricity is not the same as driving on a government constructed road.

    If the companies pay the money to the ATO, who then pays them back for the excise they don’t have to pay, what is that to you? Its the truth. Calling white black or black white doesn’t change this. All it does is make the Left look even more like a pack of liars. Why do you think Gillard was overturned? Why do you think Rudd lost the election. They lied over and over. What took a while is for ordinary people to see through their endless lies and give them the flick. You aren’t winning the argument Numbers, you are just discrediting your side of politics.

    Keep going son, you’re doing a great job.

  109. 3d1k

    Mining camps ‘hot boxes of crime’? Ridiculous.

    Construction and mining workers at camps are subject to random D&A tests which generally act to curb excesses. Modern camps are well equipped with gyms, swimming pools, BBQ recreation areas, messes providing a wide variety of menus etc.

    FIFO works very effectively, particularly in the construction phase where up to 5,000 or more workers are required in (here in the West) extremely remote areas. FIFO allows portable/deconstructable accommodation be utilised at peak workforce and then relocated post construction phase – where often actual mine work force may be only in the 100s.

    I’ve been on many projects here, Africa and South America – facilities for Australian workers are leading world class. I have never seen evidence of excessive crime, apart from occasional arguments that may result in physical force (which is often results in termination of employment). Sure, you get some colourful characters and their lifestyle choices at home may not be your own – but within the mining environment codes of behaviour exist and are willingly observed.

    That paper reads like the anti mining crud regularly delivered by The Australia Institute.

  110. Again, no evidence of your assertion that mining companies “introduce drug abuse” into communities.

    Hilarious.
    There are any number of studies linking drug abuse with introduction of FIFO workers, along with all the other dysfunctional and destructive impacts.
    Try these for starters –

    Boom Towns, Drug Towns? Mining, Alcohol and Other Drugs?
    Of Substance: The National Magazine on Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs
    Volume 7 Issue 1 (Jan 2009)

    Fly-in Fly-out Resource Development, A New Regionalist Perspective on the Next Rural Economy – Sean Markey (Ch 18 in The Next Rural Economies: Constructing Rural Place in Global Economies – Edited by Greg Halseth, Sean Patrick Markey, David Bruce)

    Established-Outsider Relations and Fear of Crime in Mining Towns
    John Scott, Kerry Carrington and Alison McIntosh – Article first published online: 20 DEC 2011

    Mining developments and social impacts on communities: Bowen Basin case studies
    Vanessa Petkova-Timmer, Centre for Environmental Management, Central Queensland University, Mackay QLD, Stewart Lockie, Professor of Sociology, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, John Rolfe, Regional Economic Development; Centre for Environmental Management, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton QLD, Galina Ivanova, Resource Economist, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton QLD

  111. MemoryVault

    There are any number of studies linking drug abuse with introduction of FIFO workers, along with all the other dysfunctional and destructive impacts.

    But nary a mention of a $14 billion a year diesel fuel subsidy.

    Still trying to move those golpasts eh, numnuts?

  112. Make no mistake, FIFO is pretty much all downside for the localities on the recieving end of it.
    The camps may well be subject to strict mine-site codes of conduct.

    There is no such protection for the town.

  113. MemoryVault

    Make no mistake, FIFO is pretty much all downside for the localities on the recieving end of it. The camps may well be subject to strict mine-site codes of conduct.
    There is no such protection for the town.

    No argument there, Steve. And if numnuts wanted to write a guest post on the shortcomings of how mining companies administer FIFO these days, and some of the inherent problems for both locals and employees, he’d be surprised at how supportive I would be.

    However, right now all he’s doing is throwing barrels of red herrings all over the place to avoid substantiating his original unsupportable assertion that mining companies receive a $14 billion a year diesel fuel subsidy.

  114. Snoopy

    The workers are all FIFO or DIDO, and they live in self contained dongas out of town. The only contact they have with the ” towns” is when they arrive at the airport or drive through on the way to camp. None of the provisioning is done locally – it’s all provided by contractors who don’t buy food or supplies locally. The local economy gets SFA benefit.

    So despite the fact that FIFO and DIDO workers have no contact with townies and are D&A tested regularly they are to blame for drugs. Of course other rural shitholes without mines are drug free.

  115. If the companies pay the money to the ATO, who then pays them back for the excise they don’t have to pay, what is that to you?

    What it is to me, is that nobody pays me back for the excise (either 13cpl or 38 cpl) that I pay to the tax office every time I buy fuel when I travel for business. Simple stuff.

    You see having been right royally screwed over some time ago, I have this thing about justice.

    As far as I’m concerned, I’m still owed the difference between what I was paid as a conscript 1969/70 and what I would have been paid had I remained a teacher for those two years. In today’s money, that’s worth $27,550.59.

    Salary increases for Queensland members of parliament this year ranged from an increase of $70,000 for the Premier, (bringing his annual wage to $379,562) to smaller amounts such as $148,848 P.A. for back bench members.

    These increases are backdated from July 2013.

    Unlike parliamentarians, we were expected to put our lives on the line, and twenty seven Queensland conscripts paid the ultimate price. Unlike parliamentarians, we had no real choice but to serve. The penalty for defying call-up was two years’ imprisonment.

    Forgive me, but this was unfair and always will be unfair.

    In the same way, favoring one specific section of industry against other citizens is also unfair. I will call it every time. I can do no other…………….

  116. notafan

    The excise is for the maintainence of public roads, farmers and miners don’t use public roads in the course of conducting their businesses so they get the excise rebated even though it would be better that they didn’t have to pay it in the first place. (the extend that they use public roads they pay the tax)
    How about everyone should pay the departure tax and if you don’t fly overseas you get to claim it back.
    It’s all about me.

  117. MemoryVault

    As far as I’m concerned, I’m still owed the difference between what I was paid as a conscript 1969/70 and what I would have been paid had I remained a teacher for those two years.

    It’s sort of like our very own home-grown version of Godwin’s Law, isn’t it?
    ALL roads, not matter how unlikely, even mythical diesel fuel subsidies, ultimately terminate in conscript-era Vietnam.

    For God’s sake, don’t mention the war.

  118. It’s sort of like our very own home-grown version of Godwin’s Law, isn’t it?

    OK – you’ve got the gratuitous abuse off your chest.
    Now deal with the issue.
    Do you think what was done to conscripts between 1963 and 1972 was just?
    Or are you going to do a Wassim Doureihi?

  119. jumpnmcar

    Good work MemoryVault, keep chasing the fuckhead here.
    Keeps the rest of the site clean.
    Or…ignore the shitbag , you’ve already won.

  120. Slayer of Memes

    There are any number of studies linking drug abuse with introduction of FIFO workers, along with all the other dysfunctional and destructive impacts.

    But just not the one you used as your first ‘go-to’ choice? Right-o.

    Since I apologised for my earlier error (apropos private and public roads), any chance of an apology from you about using a study as ‘evidence’ to support your claims which didn’t actually show any of the things you were claiming?

  121. jumpnmcar

    Now deal with the issue.
    Do you think what was done to conscripts between 1963 and 1972 was just?

    AAAaahhahahaahahahahah… TWAT!!

  122. Gab

    Just ignore it. This thread is about coal not conscription.

  123. Slayer of Memes

    OK – you’ve got the gratuitous abuse off your chest.
    Now deal with the issue.

    Heeeeeeeeeeeere it comes….

    Do you think what was done to conscripts between 1963 and 1972 was just?

    That creaking noise you’re hearing folks, is Numbers shifting the goalposts (yet again), and derailing a thread about ANU’s divestment strategy and the surrounding furore it provoked by trying to claim that mining companies introduce illegal drugs into local communities, and (now) how Vietnam was so unfair maaaaan….

    Pretty sure that derailing of threads like that is classical troll behaviour.

  124. notafan

    It is hard to imagine a more bitter and twisted personality than the one exhibited here. It poisons the site and drives decent contributors away.
    I am so grateful that most people I know that have had a knock or two or three or four can forgive and forget.

  125. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    how Vietnam was so unfair maaaaan….

    Wasn’t there a specific thread on not making every thread about Viet Nam?

  126. old bloke

    Make no mistake, FIFO is pretty much all downside for the localities on the recieving end of it.

    True, but don’t blame the mining companies for it. Out in the west the mining companies wanted to accommodate their employees and their families in the local towns but the building costs in remote WA are too high for unsubsidised housing. The mining companies were prepared to provide permanent subsidised housing in the local towns but Keating’s FBT killed any prospect of that happening. The end result of Keating’s FBT was small towns missed out on much needed development, workers are forced to work in unappealing FIFO conditions, and mining companies have to pay a fortune maintaining, in effect, a private airline business. Everyone lost because of the FBT.

  127. Quite so Old Bloke. The FBT donged the creation of mining towns.
    FIFO works well for the companies. The workers scatter to the four corners of the country on their days off, instead of organising over barbeques in the isolated mining dormitory town built for them.
    They come back broke, ready to work.
    The downside is they aren’t as loyal to the job, are far more likely to just plain not come back from their off-rotation.
    The companies seem to feel they can live with that part.

  128. MemoryVault

    Do you think what was done to conscripts between 1963 and 1972 was just?

    STILL can’t see what this has to do with a mythical $14 billion a year diesel subsidy numnuts (which was, after all, the REAL real issue), but for the record:

    If you meant getting pelted with condoms full of urine, marching through Sydney, no, I* didn’t think it was very just at the time.
    If you meant being told by Bruce Ruxton that we* weren’t real soldiers, shouldn’t be tolerated marching with real vets on Anzac Day, and shouldn’t be entitled to full membership of the RSL, no I don’t think it was just.
    But you didn’t mean either of those, or any of the other many injustices, did you, numnuts.

    You are referring entirely to pay disparity.
    Well suck it up, boyo. You got paid less, and feel aggrieved about it.
    On the other hand I got paid a great deal more than I had been getting as a cadet engineer.
    I even got paid more during my initial holiday sojourn at Scheyville.
    Then I got a pay rise on graduation.

    Think of it as income redistribution – you lot are supposed to be all in favour of that.

    .
    *What – you thought you were the only ex-Nasho here?

  129. Slayer of Memes

    Wasn’t there a specific thread on not making every thread about Viet Nam?

    Indeed there was Zulu.

    It was that very thread, in fact, in which Splatacrobat came up with “Spudpeeler’s Law” as a corollary to Godwin’s Law.

  130. MemoryVault

    Good work MemoryVault, keep chasing the fuckhead here.
    Keeps the rest of the site clean.

    Thanks Jump – the truth is, I’ve got a prefabricated wall to pull upright, but it’s blowing a gale outside, and my mobility scooter has its limits, so I’m sitting here bored shitless.

    I usually ignore numnuts, but I’ve grown sick of greenfilth trolls who keep coming back and repeating the same tired, old, utterly discredited memes, so, for wont of something better to do, I decided to make him stick with the subject, just for once.

  131. MemoryVault

    It was that very thread, in fact, in which Splatacrobat came up with “Spudpeeler’s Law” as a corollary to Godwin’s Law.

    Thanks for that, Slayer.
    It predates my involvement here – I was unaware of it.

  132. Slayer of Memes

    You’re most welcome MV.

    I recall reading your comments over at Jo Nova’s when I used to lurk there. Indeed, some of your posts picking apart the many and varied trolls (and their associated claims) there were perhaps the reason for my picking of this particualr nom-de-blog.

  133. repeating the same tired, old, utterly discredited memes

    The mining industry in Australia is heavily subsidized.

    It’s not tired, it’s not old and it’s not discredited.
    It’s truth – but not toeing the party line here, where “truth” is a moveable feast.

  134. Lack of a tax ain’t a subsidy. (Just in case anybody here is all pedantic about words having meanings ‘n’ all).

  135. Bruce of Newcastle

    What it is to me, is that nobody pays me back for the excise (either 13cpl or 38 cpl) that I pay to the tax office every time I buy fuel when I travel for business. Simple stuff.

    Numbers – If you are travelling for business you can claim travel expenses which does the same thing.

    Car and travel expenses 2014

    For my 1.6 L car I would be getting about $9.30 per litre tax deduction (0.65*100/7) which does rather exceed 13 or 38c/L. It falls because of the 5,000 km/yr limit, but at 30,000km/yr I’d still be getting $1.55/L back.

    I don’t travel for work, so I defer to others to discuss eligibility with you. But, yep, if you are claiming travel expenses you are getting all the excise back and then some.

  136. tomix

    The mining companies can’t win the argument. If they operate out of the town, they bid up rents and prices and drive the poor people out.
    If they go FIFO, the local landlords and business people suddenly find common cause with the local political agitators.

  137. Sinc –
    Your conclusion from the MCA backgrounder –

    Estimates of subsidies to the mining industry
    range from about $4 billion each year to as
    high as $10 billion. Most of these claims are
    limited solely by the imagination of the analyst
    undertaking the analysis. Official estimates
    by Treasury and the Productivity Commission
    are much lower and reflect features of the tax
    system that mostly apply across the whole
    economy. Hence the mining industry is not the
    beneficiary of large amounts of government
    subsidy or special privilege.

    You did not come up with an estimate of your own. Why not? It seems passing strange when you quoted others, and were highly critical of them.

  138. Sinclair Davidson

    Okay – you’re trolling.

  139. MemoryVault

    The mining industry in Australia is heavily subsidized.

    Three links.

    First link to an ABC article which uncritically quotes a TAI “paper” which itself is little more than devious spin that claims Aussies don’t really make much at all out of mining.

    Second link to a far left spinoff of the further far left Friends of the Earth, which claims just about every tax concession ever allowed to any company that uses fossil fuels, is a “subsidy” (fringe benefits tax exemption on taxi fares for employees fer chrissake). Numnuts spins the spin even further by claiming it is ALL subsidy to the mining industry when, in fact, it includes exemptions for power generation, aviation, tourism, shipping and employee car parking.

    Third link to the aforementioned TAI “paper”; the one which claims Australians don’t get anything from mining and which is comprised almost entirely of little gems of spin such as this:

    It is not just iron ore and coal that Australia exports in large quantities; we export a lot of dividend payments as well. In 2009 – 10 mining profits were $51 billion, of which 83 per cent, or $42 billion, accrued to foreign investors. Over the next ten years pre – tax profits for mining will likely be around $600 billion; at present levels of foreign ownership around $500 billion of these profits will end up in the hands of foreign owners.

    Note how $42 billion of $51 billion of pre-tax profits accrue to “foreign investors”. Apparently “foreign investors” don’t have to pay tax on profits obtained in Australia. Who knew?

    And within 10 years $500 billion of these apparently non-taxed profits will “end up in the hands of foreign investors”? Surely the grubbermint would introduce a tax on those sorts of profits?

    And what a staggering growth rate. $51 billion to $600 billion in less than ten years.

    and

    According to the ABS the total pre – tax profits earned by mining firms operating in Australia was more than $51 billion in 2009 -10. If these profits were distributed evenly across Australian households the dividend cheque received by each household would come to more than $5,000. But of course the ownership of Australian mining companies is far from evenly distributed across the Australian community, as already noted. Indeed, around 83 per cent of profits will in fact be sent offshore to the foreign owners of mining operations in Australia.

    Once again we conflate pre-tax profits with what actually gets paid out as a dividend. Unless, of course, I’ve been misled and Aussies too, are not required to pay tax on mining profits. Why didn’t somebody tell me earlier?

    And isn’t ” . . . if these profits were distributed evenly across Australian households the dividend cheque received by each household would come to more than $5,000″ just another way of saying “from each according to his means, to each according to his needs”.

    Didn’t they try that in the USSR?

  140. MemoryVault

    Okay – you’re trolling.

    There was ever some doubt . . . ?

  141. egg_

    Do you think what was done to conscripts between 1963 and 1972 was just?

    Ask the Lord?

  142. egg_

    So despite the fact that FIFO and DIDO workers have no contact with townies and are D&A tested regularly they are to blame for drugs.

    I too have difficulty with such “logic”.

  143. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Do you think what was done to conscripts between 1963 and 1972 was just?

    The first National Service ballot, for those born 1st January 1945 to 30th June 1945, wasn’t until 10th March 1965. (“A Nation at War, Peter Edwards, P371), so nobody would have actually been conscripted until after the ballot?

  144. kelly liddle

    it is very naive to believe that the government will not get involved

    They are already involved as they are indirectly the divestors. Just remember funds are fungible and even if the money collected for investments came from private they new it was going to an organisation created and funded by the government.

    The Australian National University was established by an Act of the Federal Parliament in 1946. Its founding mission was to be of enduring significance in the post-war life of the nation, to support the development of national unity and identity, to improve Australia’s understanding of itself and its neighbours, and to contribute to economic development and social cohesion.

    Its mandate was to undertake ‘postgraduate research and study both generally and in relation to subjects of national importance’. This national mission gives ANU a distinctive relationship with the Australian Federal Government.

    ANU was founded around four initial research institutes in physics, medicine, social sciences and Pacific studies and was the country’s only full-time research university. Since then there have been many progressive additions to the University’s range of activities, including offerings for undergraduate students since 1960.

    Maybe the mission has changed about the national unity bit.

  145. entropy

    tomix
    #1482542, posted on October 19, 2014 at 4:33 pm
    The mining companies can’t win the argument. If they operate out of the town, they bid up rents and prices and drive the poor people out.
    If they go FIFO, the local landlords and business people suddenly find common cause with the local political agitators.

    Exactly. Mayors in particular are prone to holding both views at once. So mining follows the pass of least resistance and FIFO.
    Leaving the local community wondering why nobody wants to live there.
    As is the case for most of this type of carry on, it is a proxy fight against mining and development in general.
    Like noble savages, rural people are supposed to live the lifestyle imagined for them by others.

Comments are closed.