EcoRadio

Category: Sustainable Settlement and Agriculture

The Generator is founded on the simple premise that we should leave the world in better condition than we found it. The news items in this category outline the attempts people have made to do this. They are mainly concerned with our food supply and settlement patterns. The impact that the human race has on the planet.

  • Battle over tax leaves Labor with bloody nose

     

    Although Gillard, being a new prime minister, will be given a lot of slack by the electorate, the Labor government’s backdown on the mining tax, coming on top of its retreat on the emissions trading scheme, will entrench its reputation for weakness and lack of conviction, and further embolden vested interests to actively resist legislation they don’t like.

    Labor will be looking for people to blame, but it should consider its own part in this political disaster. Its decision to adopt such a controversial reform so close to an election was a basic political miscalculation.

    Its belief that, simply by naming the tax a ”super profits” tax, it could harness all the public’s envious resentment of the rich mining companies, which would be sufficient to outweigh all the propaganda the miners would put up, was another bad call.

    This government has shown an inability to set priorities for itself, tried to do too much, and grossly underestimated the degree of ground-preparing, consulting and explaining needed to ensure a controversial reform makes it from announcement to reality.

    Professor Ross Garnaut said early in this war that it would be a test of whether difficult economic reform remained possible in Australia, or whether powerful interest groups now had too much sway over the political process.

    By that test we haven’t done well, even if a significant element of reform remains in the compromise forced on the government. It’s now clear to all that governments daring to take on the mighty mining industry can expect to lose.

    The big miners have won their fight against the emissions trading scheme, and now they’ll be seen as achieving major concessions in the attempt to make them share with the owners of the resources a larger proportion of the windfall gains from the resources boom.

    These guys are giant killers. They saved themselves $1.5 billion over the first two years – and probably a lot more in later years – for the price of an advertising campaign estimated to have cost just $7 million.

    They prove that if you’re big enough, rich enough and aggressive enough you can push around the elected government of Australia.

    This Labor government has always been afraid of big business and now its drubbing at the hands of three big companies will deepen that fear. What do you reckon are the chances of a re-elected Labor government returning to the Henry report for further ideas on tax reform?

    I fear this is the end for controversial micro-economic reform from Labor. And it’s hard to see the cause being taken up by a future Liberal government. Don’t forget the major part the Abbott opposition’s unprincipled opportunism played in this affair and in the abandonment of the emissions trading scheme before it.

    The deal involves changing the (dumb) name of the resources super profits tax to the minerals resource rent tax, turning it into a more generous version of the existing petroleum resource rent tax and extending the coverage of the petroleum tax.

    That’s not the end of the world. The miners had been expecting something similar to petroleum tax and, had that been what the government decided to introduce, it would have been greeted by economists as a big improvement in the efficiency of resource taxation.

    In theory, the originally proposed tax was more economically efficient than the petroleum tax – that is, it would have done less to distort miners’ choices about what projects to undertake. But some of the miners’ criticisms of it – namely, that bankers would discount for purposes of collateral the value of the government’s guarantee to cover 40 per cent of project losses – were genuine.

    The main difference in changing the original tax to be more like the petroleum tax is to drop the guarantee to pick up 40 per cent of losses, in return for the cut-in point for the application of the rent tax being raised from the long-term bond rate to the long-term bond rate plus 7 percentage points.

    This is just a change in the way the tax allows for ”risk” in the universally accepted proposition that economic rent is what projects earn in excess of their risk-adjusted rate of return (the long-term bond rate being taken as the risk-free rate of return). Don’t forget that those minerals that remain covered by the new tax – iron ore and coal – will still have the new tax effectively take the place of the states’ volume- or price-based (but not profit-based) royalty charges. This feature does much to improve efficiency.

    What’s hard to understand about the deal is that so many changes could be made at such a small net loss of revenue from the new tax: $1.5 billion over the first two years. Three possible explanations come to mind. First, the original costings had a lot of leeway built into them in anticipation of some concessions having to be granted.

    Second, the ultimate cost of the concessions won’t be felt until after the first two years of the tax (the estimates for which we’ve never been shown).

    Third, the exclusion of many other minerals from the tax may involve a net saving to revenue because those firms would have gained from not having to pay state royalties while paying little or no resource rent tax. If so, the small miners have only themselves to blame for throwing in their lot with the big boys and then being dudded.

    And the same goes for all those businesses now facing a cut in company tax of only 1 percentage point rather than 2 points because they stood back while their big mining mates did over the government at their expense.

    Ross Gittins is the Economics Editor.

     

  • Young SA Drivers banned from high-powered cars

     

    SA Road Safety Minister, Jack Snelling, says high-powered cars are often involved in fatal crashes.

    “Too many young people are killing themselves on the roads and that often happens when an inexperienced driver is driving a car that they just don’t have the necessary experience to control, particularly in dangerous circumstances,” he said.

    Mr Snelling says it will be possible to seek an exemption from the law.

    “If you already own one of these cars and don’t have another car available, or one of these cars happens to be the family car and no other car is available or if you need to drive one of these cars for work, you’re able to make an application to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for an exemption in those sort of special circumstances,” he said.

    Tags: community-and-society, youth-issues, safety-education, government-and-politics, states-and-territories, australia, sa, adelaide-5000

    First posted 5 hours 27 minutes ago

  • Gillard announces mining tax changes

    Gillard announces mining tax changes

    AAP July 2, 2010, 9:24 am
     
    The federal government has dropped the RSPT and replaced it with a minerals resource rent tax.

    AAP © Enlarge photo

     

    The federal government will limit its new resources tax to just 320 companies mining iron ore, coal, oil and gas.

    It has dropped its plan for a resource super profits tax and replaced it with a minerals resource rent tax.

    The new tax will apply to iron ore and coal projects which will be taxed at a new headline rate of 30 per cent – down from the previously planned 40 per cent.

    The cut-in rate also has been adjusted to the long-term bond rate plus seven per cent.

    The current petroleum resource rent tax will be extended to all onshore and offshore oil, gas and coal seam methane projects.

    Other commodities will not be included in the tax regime.

    The new measures come at a cost, garnering $1.5 billion less revenue than the previously-announced resource super profits tax.

    To offset that loss, the government will cut the company tax rate to 29 per cent from 2013/14, but will not reduce it further under current fiscal conditions.

    Small companies will still benefit from an early cut to the company tax rate to 29 per cent from 2012/13.

    A planned lift in compulsory superannuation contributions – from nine per cent to 12 per cent by 2020 – remains unaffected.

    The resource exploration rebate will not be pursued, with the current tax deductible arrangements staying in place.

    Small miners with resource profits below $50 million a year won’t be liable to pay the new tax.

    The petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT) regime, which currently only applies to offshore petroleum projects, will be extended to cover all oil, gas and coal seam methane projects, onshore and offshore Australia.

    The tax will apply at a rate of 40 per cent.

    The rate at which the tax applies has risen from the long-term bond rate – currently just over five per cent – to the bond rate plus seven per cent. That makes the super profit threshold about 12 per cent.

    The new taxation arrangements, which are planned to begin on July 1, 2012, will apply only to the value of the resource rather than the value added by the miner.

    The taxing point will be set at the mine gate where possible.

    “This agreement provides certainty to the resources industry, to mining communities right around the country, and to the broader Australian economy,” Prime Minister Julia Gillard said in a statement, ahead of a scheduled press conference at 8.30am (AEST) on Friday.

    “It sends a very clear message to the world that the Australian resources sector is strong and its future is secure.”

    The changes also recognise the views of the resources sector, Ms Gillard said.

    A policy transition group, led by Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, will also oversee the development of more detailed technical design.

    Prime Minister Julia Gillard says new resources tax arrangements will allow the nation to move forward.

    Announcing the plans in Canberra on Friday, Ms Gillard said the nation could now move on, with Australians getting a fairer share of mining wealth.

    “We have been stuck on this question as a nation for too long,” she told reporters.

    “Today we are moving forward together.”

    The arrangements would deliver better returns for the resources that all Australians owned, and that could only be dug up once, Ms Gillard said.

    It will end uncertainty and division, strengthen the economy and deliver sustained investment in infrastructure in mining communities, “maintaining Australia’s standing as a competitive and attractive destination for investment”, she said.

    The “competitive tax rates” would allow business to grow.

    “We have a positive basis for trust and I believe we have established that this week.”

    Former BHP Billiton chairman Don Argus will chair a policy transition group, Ms Gillard said.

    “I’m delighted that Don Argus … accepted my invitation to chair this process working alongside me.”

    Treasurer Wayne Swan said Ms Gillard’s leadership was instrumental in reaching an agreement with the resources sector.

    “I think it’s fair to say that her intervention changed the tone of this debate and has led to this breakthrough,” he told reporters.

    “She gets things done and I think that’s obvious by the nature of this agreement.”

    Mr Swan described as “difficult” and “untidy” the spiteful battle fought over the tax since early May.

    “It is a better tax for the negotiation that we’ve had in recent times,” he said.

    “It’s pretty fair to say that not every single company or every single individual in the country is going to agree with this outcome.

    “Not everybody will always embrace the idea of paying more tax but I think what we have achieved here is a pretty strong consensus in a key area.”

    Ms Gillard acknowledged the compromise deal would have its critics.

    “At the end of the day, you will never please everybody, and we’re not suggesting that this package will please everybody,” she said.

    The negotiated deal showed the benefits of “respectful conversations and frank talking”.

    Ms Gillard defended the public servants and government advisers who had worked on the original tax proposal from suggestions they were not working in the “real world”.

    “Obviously we need advice from within the bureaucracy, and I believe we’ve got great people working alongside us as a government.”

    The government had got out and talked to people about the tax, Ms Gillard said, adding it was her intention to continue doing that.

    The discussions with the mining industry was “hard, frank and respectful”, Ms Gillard said.

    “As prime minister I’ve put my stamp on the approach that was taken here,” she said, adding that she was “not afraid of a difficult conversation”.

    Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said the new tax design should not threaten jobs in South Australia, where OneSteel, the main employer in the steelworks town of Whyalla, said it couldn’t survive the original tax proposal.

    “On the basis of my reading of these principles, there is no danger to any jobs in South Australia,” he told reporters.

    “We’ll see the expansion of (BHP Billiton mine) Olympic Dam, which will create a huge economic opportunity for South Australia and the nation and will secure the future of those workers and their families who depend on OneSteel.”

    Mr Ferguson said the dumped tax break for resource exploration was still an option for the future.

    “The industry decided they didn’t want it, we ditched it because the industry wanted it ditched,” he said.

    “It will be part of the consideration of any other possible system through the implementation committee chaired by Don Argus and myself.”

    Mr Swan said it was “not inevitable” that a planned increase in compulsory superannuation contributions – from nine per cent to 12 per cent by 2020 – will come out of the wages of employees.

    “It will depend upon wage negotiations…(it) will be sorted out at the workplace level,” he said.

     

  • Greens say they’re crucial to mining tax

    Greens say they’re crucial to mining tax

    AAP July 1, 2010, 2:50 pm

     

    The Australian Greens say they will be in a key position to amend mining tax legislation if, as expected, they hold the balance of power after the next federal election.

    Any agreement between the mining sector and the federal government on Labor’s proposed resources super profits tax will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, Greens leader Bob Brown told reporters in Sydney on Thursday.

    “There’s a small thing called democracy here and a big thing called the Australian parliament, and unless Labor gets control of both houses, and that’s not going to happen, then the agreement will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny,” Senator Brown said.

    The Greens do not want the current “very secret” negotiations between the government and the mining sector to result in any reduction of the $12 billion extra revenue forecast in the budget’s forward estimates.

    “(Twelve billion) is a pretty clear guide to whether the government has maintained the public interest or caved in, and if so by how much it’s caved in,” Senator Brown said.

    “Which other sector of the Australian community expects to have such a monumentally important tax item negotiated so rigidly behind closed doors and away from the view of public scrutiny?

    “The mining industry needs to know that parliament has the final say, not just government.”

    The opposition has no intention of supporting a deal, saying it will rescind the tax if it wins power at the next election.

    Senator Brown reiterated that the Greens had no plans to block mining tax legislation introduced after the election.

    “Tony Abbott is saying, `I’m a blocker.’ I’m not saying that, I’m saying we’re improvers, we’ll get better outcomes,” he said, citing the role of the Greens in last year’s economic stimulus package.

    “We’ll be looking for the public dividend here. We’ll be looking for the interests of small business and Australians generally.”

    Senator Brown said he was hopeful of improved dialogue between Labor and the Greens under the new prime minister.

    “I’m expecting with Julia Gillard now in the pilot seat of government, we’ll get a better direction in terms of a two-way dialogue on important issues, particularly with … the Greens likely to get the balance of power in the next election,” he said.

    If the election resulted in a Labor-controlled lower house and a Liberal-controlled Senate, there would be “gridlock”, Senator Brown said.

    “And that’s a very poor outcome for the Australian people.”

     

  • Wilderness Society head facing the chop

     

    Mr Marr says he is unsure what will happen now.

    “We’ll now see what attitude the board takes,” he said.

    “Is it going to take an attitude of trying to bring some healing to the organisation and solving some of the problems that this group has actually helped to create? Or is it going to continue the jihad?”

    Mr Mackenzie says the committee has the power to sack the executive director.

    “I think that’s a matter to be decided over the coming weeks. The Wilderness Society board of management is now going to be talking with the executive director,” he said.

    “Obviously the executive director has a vision for the organisation which perhaps isn’t shared with the membership.

    “We saw that clearly tonight and we need to talk with Alec about that.”

    The Wilderness Society’s annual meetings rarely attract big numbers, but last night, 250 members from around Australia turned out. Another 460 took part in a phone hook-up.

    “The whole thing is very upsetting but the time has come when we have to, as members, work out a better solution,” one member said.

     

    Infighting

     

    Two rival groups have been battling for control of the TWS. One side is led by Mr Marr, the other by Mr Mackenzie, who says the organisation has lost its way.

    “The Wilderness Society has been taken in a direction which hasn’t been really in accord with its culture and its reasons for success in the past,” Mr Mackenzie said.

    But Mr Marr maintains he is the victim of a vilification campaign.

    “Myself and the management committee have been trying to resolve this privately for a year, we’re not the people who took this dispute public,” he said.

    The last annual meeting was controversial because not many members knew about it, leading the Tasmanian Supreme Court to rule it invalid.

    All state branches have declared no confidence in Mr Marr, except the South Australian branch which remains neutral.

    Peter Owen, one of its campaigners, has called for the organisation to “grow up”.

    “The factional infighting is not appropriate in an NGO, I’d even question as to whether it’s appropriate in the major political parties,” he said.

    Last night’s meeting dragged on for five hours and most were happy with the result.

    An overwhelming majority voted against Mr Marr’s eight members on the national managing committee and replaced them with members from the rival faction.

    “Hopefully it’s over; there was a good feeling in the room at the end. I think everybody wants to move on,” one voter said.

    As victor, Mr Mackenzie has declared the factional war over.

    Tags: environment, conservation, activism-and-lobbying, australia, sa, adelaide-5000, tas

    First posted 3 hours 31 minutes ago

  • The Death of Irony (MONBIOT)

     

    But more disturbing than the sense of irony failure is the ease with which the terms I used slipped past them. Throughout the piece I used an obvious device: I substituted the word “youth” for the words “crime” and “criminal”. I discussed the epidemic of youth on our streets, the youthwave, the fight against youth, youth statistics, the incidence of youth and the youth class. My point was that these terms have become almost synonymous. We have demonised not just young criminals, but the entire generation to which they belong. The apparent invisibility of this substitution gives my point more weight than I hoped it possessed.

    There has always been a degree of intergenerational suspicion and antagonism. One reader who wasn’t fooled dug up a wonderful quote from Socrates: “Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers.” It could have been published by the Daily Mail this morning. Every generation of adults appears to believe that the coincident generation of children is uniquely disgusting. We don’t seem to learn from our own experience of adult prejudice, but instead take it out on the next generation as soon as we are old enough to disapprove of them.

    Adults have always seen young people as troublesome and disrepectful. But two things distinguish the current climate. The first is the association we now make between youth and crime. Blair’s government in particular criminalised behaviour which was formally seen as a social problem, not a legal one. The conflation reached the height of absurdity earlier this month with the publication of the British Crime Survey’s first set of statistics on the victimisation of children. At first sight the figures were horrific: they showed that one in four children between 10 and 15 had been the victims of theft or violence – mostly by other children – over the past year.

    But when you looked more closely you discovered that most of these “crimes” were incidents such as pushing and shoving, or one sibling breaking another’s toy. This didn’t prevent the Sun from reporting:

    A QUARTER of kids aged ten to 15 were victims of crime last year – mostly at school, shock figures show. More than 2.1million suffered violence, robbery or theft, putting them at greater risk than adults.

    The other distinguishing feature of these times is that the fear of young people in public places coincides with young people spending less time outdoors than they have ever done before. There appears to be a sharp disjunction between popular perceptions of children running wild in the streets, kicking footballs, shouting and being rowdy and offensive, and the reality of a young population which seldom sees the light of day. Perhaps it’s because groups of teenagers are seldom seen outdoors – especially playing football in the street – that they attract so much public attention and disapproval on the rare occasions when they do venture out. We’re just not used to it.

    None of this is to suggest that groups of children cannot sometimes make other people’s lives hell. But in the past we managed to deal with this without demonising an entire generation, without criminalising annoying but trivial behaviour and without using collective punishments like curfews, dispersal orders and acoustic deterrents. Previous generations of adults regarded young people as a nuisance they had to live with. We seem to regard them as a nuisance we don’t have to live with.

    www.monbiot.com