Australian mining industry piles on the tax distortions as it tries to win over the electorate

If one relies on media reports it would appear that the Australian mining industry might have a case against the Rudd Government's proposed Resource Super Profits Tax which is due to activate in 2012.

The RSPT will replace the crude oil excise, and operate in parallel with State and Territory royalty regimes and Under the RSPT a refundable credit for royalties paid to State and Territory Governments will be available.

However, if one cares to open the media releases put out by the Mining Council of Australia the flimsy nature of arguments used by the anti-RSPT lobby begins to emerge.

To date my favourite assertion is; The super tax is, in effect, a Government-mandated sale of 40% of Australia's resources industry at a Government mandated price.

Another favourite is the statement that; For the industry as a whole in 2007-2008, ATO statistics show mining companies paid 27.8% effective corporate tax rate, which rises to 41.3% when royalties are included.

While Mining pays a higher tax rate than any other industry stands out as a blatant attempt at misdirection.

All these quotes are found in the Mineral Council's The truth about the super tax –the myths and the facts, 25 May 2010.

So let's look at the forced sale argument.

No established mining corporation is talking of selling off the parent company or subsidiaries - in the middle of a resources boom most of these companies are very profitable and likely to continue so for many years even with mooted tax reform.

The only threats being made by some mining companies is that they will reassess their scheduled mining projects in light of the proposed tax and rebate scheme.

What about that colossal corporate tax rate quoted, I hear you ask.

Well in 2007-08 there were according to the Australian Taxation Office 2007-08 statistics; 4,290 mining companies having combined incomes which totalled $160,323,192,189, which in turn had combined taxable incomes of $29,010,243,407 and net tax actually paid was $8,068,463,15 after all allowed deductions had been made.

As for royalty payments made in Australia these added up to $3,924,902,975 in 2007-08, which was a little over half of all royalty payments across all listed industries made in that financial year. (Update: A hat tip here to Peter Martin for pointing out in a recent post that mining royalties are tax deductible)

What the Tax Office also points out is the fact that of these 4,290 mining companies there were some who paid no tax at all and, these comprised 68.3% of all mining companies.

In fact the mining sector has the second-highest percentage of 'no tax paid' than any other listed industry.

How did they do that?

Well there are at least 20 deductions, rebates, concessions, exemptions, offsets etc. available to the mining industry and their combined value is literally worth billions.

The industry total for expenses claimed under R&D concessions alone was $2,508,321,897 and immediate deduction for capital expenditure $3,785,347,506, in 2007-08.

So how does the claim that the mining industry is paying a higher tax rate than any other industry fare?

Quite frankly the mining industry tax rate does not stand alone from some other listed industries in terms of comparable tax percentages to taxable income.

It is worth noting that in 2007 the Business Council of Australia in Tax Nation calculated corporate tax (as a percentage of profit) at 20% for the mining industry.

Interestingly this same document stated; Taxes Collected are negative for the mining industry group because as major exporters survey participants reported a significant GST refund which more than offset other Taxes Collected.

It is also interesting to see that the Mining Council of Australia's advertisement presently being broadcast states that the mining industry currently pays 38% tax, which is a figure significantly lower than those quoted in other council documents which had the combined company tax and royalties running at 41.3%.

Next time you see a talking head spruiking for the mining industry or catch one of the industry's televised advertisements - remember that all is not as these miners would have you believe.

Image from Mumbrella

ICAC investigation into lobbying in New South Wales - have your say on undue influence and corruption

Communities on the NSW North Coast are subject to sustained population pressure and the growing influence of developers both large and small is distorting the democratic process in relation to planning policy and implementation at state and local level.

Here is an opportunity for Northern Rivers residents to have their say on failing processes in formal and informal interactions between government, elected representatives, public servants/local government management and communities.

From the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) website:

The Independent Commission Against Corruption is conducting an investigation into lobbying of public officials and public authorities in NSW and the related procedures and regulatory system.

The Commission is seeking input from individuals and organisations through a call for submissions which must be received at the Commission by 5pm Wednesday 23 June 2010. See the guide for making a submission for more information.

Submissions may respond to the Commission's issues paper on lobbying, the investigation scope and purpose and other relevant issues concerning lobbying in NSW.

Lobbying in NSW - issues paper

Guide for making a submission to the ICAC

Scope and purpose of the investigation

The scope and purpose of the investigation is to examine whether the relationship between lobbyists and public authorities and public officials may allow, encourage or cause the occurrence of corrupt conduct or conduct connected with corrupt conduct and to identify whether any laws governing any public authority or public official need to be changed and whether any methods of work, practices or procedures of any public authority or public official could allow, encourage or cause the occurrence of corrupt conduct and if so, what changes should be made.

Is your local council using this tool?
The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has recently released a Development assessment internal audit tool. The ICAC recommends that councils adapt all or part of this tool to address the potential corruption risks within the development assessment process.

Are we in danger of entering a new faith-inspired Dark Ages or are we witnessing conservative right-wing religion's last hurrah?

The media quite often throws up quotes by religious leaders on the subject of global warming and some journalists have a penchant for picking those clerics who are most likely to be firmly anti-science.

So, are we in danger of entering a new faith-inspired Dark Ages or are we witnessing conservative right-wing religion's last hurrah? Now there is a question which itself smacks of as much wishful thinking on my part as that demonstrated by climate change sceptics within the clergy.

I don't think that there is any danger of paternalistic traditional religion fading away or its right-wing cadres disappearing into thin air. It's much more likely that when climate change descends on the heads of these faith-based sceptics we will all be told chronic water scarcity, food shortages and all our violent weather woes are God's punishment for our manifest sins.

Still, egged on by certain dominant groups and paid lobbyists, those against the idea that there is any such thing as catastrophic man-made global warming are now firmly entrenched in the religious arena. It would be folly to ignore the ability of religious groups to influence government policy, particularly in the role of stalking horse for big business.

Recent shifts in COP15 2009 rhetoric from binding legal agreements to non-binding political agreements being the goal for Copenhagen this December are no coincidence, as the alliances forged between anti-science groups supported by polluting industries and right-wing religious groups are emerging into the light.

On the U.S. faith-based Cornwall Alliance website currently there is a copy of An Open Letter to the Signers of"Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action"and Others Concerned About Global Warming which states:

In the accompanying document, "A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming," we present extensive evidence and argument against the extent, the significance, and perhaps the existence of the much-touted scientific consensus on catastrophic human-induced global warming. Further, good science–like truth–is not about counting votes but about empirical evidence and valid arguments.

The website also features The Cornwall Stewardship Agenda and is listed by that secular anti-global warming group The Heartland Institute as one of its 2009 conference co-sponsors.

Even Australia is not immune - for years Catholic Cardinal George Pell has been a member of the anti-science chorus and been quoted in media as saying that he is not convinced that climate change poses a threat, which shores up Monbiot's theory that many of the vocal global warming denialists appear to be middle aged to elderly.

While Christian right-wing political parties Family First and the Christian Democratic Party have both frequently taken highly sceptical, contradictory and often unreasonable positions on the existence of man-made warming. Although these two political parties are not alone in their desire to deny. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition is also riddled with anti-science sentiment as illustrated by the recent ABC Four Corners episode Malcolm and the Malcontents [Program Transcript and Reports and Resources].

It would not surprise me if findings of the October 2009 Pew Research Centre survey on attitudes to climate change were mirrored in Australia (this American survey found that the belief that global warming was a very serious problem had fallen by 27 percent within the combined 50 years of age and over groups and only 9 percent within the combined 49 years of age and under groups. These changes occurring in a sixteen month period). Indeed the summary of The 2009 Lowy Institute Poll appears to indicate that this is possible, however the 1,003 respondents do not appear to have been differentiated across all age groupings - at least for public consumption.

In 2007 Monsanto spent US$4M+ on lobbying, in 2008 it spent US$8M+, while in 2009....

Graph U.S. Agricultural sector lobbying expenditure 2009

Monsanto & Co. continues to expand its dominance of the world seed and genetically modified food additive markets with certain of its corporate expenses rising each year this century.

In 2006 this biotech multinational spent over US$3 million on lobbying governments and government agencies. By 2008 it was spending over US$8 million. In 2009 so far Monsanto & Co has spent over US$6 million on similar activities.

It is only one of 342 agricultural sector lobbyists in the United States listed by Open Secrets but is by far the biggest spender this year.

The U.S. agricultural lobby sector in 2009 is worth $25,721,913, has made over $2 million in campaign contributions for the American 2010 election cycle to date and Monsanto is in the top five donation contributors.

In February of this year Monsanto approached the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking a ruling that stearidonic (SDA) omega-3 soybean oil was generally recognised as safe.

Monsanto intends to market SDA soybean oil as a food ingredient in the United States in a variety of food products including baked goods and baking mixes, breakfast cereals and grains, cheeses, dairy product analogs, fats and oils, fish products, frozen dairy desserts and mixes, grain products and pastas, gravies and sauces, meat products, milk products, nuts and nut products, poultry products, processed fruit juices, processed vegetable products, puddings and fillings, snack foods, soft candy, and soups and soup mixes. SDA soybean oil will be added to foods at levels that provide 375 mg SDA/serving.

Now it is reported that Monsanto is positioning itself to release soy-based GMO omega-3 oil on the market sometime after 2010 and according to a Monsanto media release the FDA has announced this month that genetically modified omega-3 oil is safe to use (however the FDA makes it plain that it has solely relied on Monsanto's own assessment).

Are we getting close to quod erat demonstrandum?

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

A question for Not Evil Just Wrong: where exactly are are the 31,000 scientists who say there is no climate change crisis?

Not Evil Just Wrong (NEJW) is a documentary on DVD allegedly revealing the dangers of global warming hysteria.

These dangers apparently being clearly seen by 31,000 scientists around the world if the Internet promotion is to be believed and, presumably these so-called scientists are the same grab bag of signatories to the old, discredited Global Warming Petition Project.

In an effort to lay the astroturf wall-to-wall the promoter/s of this documentary are paying AU$5 to certain blogs featuring the NEJW flashing badge.
Even the Australian Libertarian Society blog is bragging about getting a slice of the profits to promote freedom in Australia.

Tiffany McElhany is the front person in this film and is described on the associated website as a mother and wife, living in Vevay, Indiana. Tiffany's husband, Tim works in a local plant making mufflers for Toyota and, Fred Singer is listed also as a contributor to the site along with a number of other climate change denial supporters.

However, what was a surprise is to find James E. Hansen listed as a contributor to this anti-Gore, anti-global warming website.

Now Dr. Hansen is almost as far from a climate change denialist as one could get (as his April 2009 draft letter to the Australian Government demonstrates) and, is committed to the idea of mitigation measures.
To make it quite clear this is what Dr. Hansen stated in The Sword of Damocles:

Over a year ago I wrote to Prime Minister Brown asking him to place a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in Britain. I have asked the same of Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and other world leaders. The reason is this – coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet. Our global climate is nearing tipping points. Changes are beginning to appear, and there is a potential for explosive changes with effects that would be irreversible – if we do not rapidly slow fossil fuel emissions over the next few decades.

So what on earth is he doing on the very short list of NEJW website contributors and, what is environmental activist Ed Begley Jnr doing up there along with him when as late as the time of writing this post Begley was not lisitng NEJW as a group he was associated with?

Uh oh...........seems like the NEJW group have a lot more questions to answer than those it raises in its own documentary.

Marohasy's out of a job and hawking her pottery collection

According to Jennifer Marohasy's blog on 6 July 2009:

My second three-year contract with the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) ended with the financial year and is not being renewed.........

I had great hopes for the planned collaboration between the IPA and University of Queensland on evidence-based environmentalism but the University proved too timid and conservative - at least for me........

I have also left the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) Executive....

I am going to have to find a new job, or perhaps start a small business (If anyone is interested in antique Asian pottery I have a collection for sale.)........

I will be kind and refrain from further comment.

NSW Register of Lobbyists and media as lobbyists

If you are in the mood to look at a list, here is the NSW Register of Lobbyists and the accompanying NSW Government Lobbyist Code of Conduct.

If you are in the mood to have your jaw drop at how the mainstream media is beginning to morph, have a peek at this; Washington Post cancels lobbyist event amid uproar.

The coal and oil lobby get serious about blocking moves to limit greenhouse gases

The American Institute for Energy Research has created an off-shoot, the erroneously named Energy Freedom Center.

Reportedly partly funded by Exxon-Mobile, with the help of former US Republican senator George Allen it launched the new entity in early June 2009 and, is busy attempting to dismantle any concerted effort to have the US Congress seriously consider a national scheme to address the causes and effects of climate change.

Meanwhile R&R Partners - Advertising continues to push the interests of the coal industry.

To demonstrate just how far 'dirty' energy will go to maintain the status quo here is an excerpt from the R&R brag sheet:

The Challenge:
To develop a new issue-advocacy and message branding campaign focused on changing public perceptions and influencing congressional action. Included in this effort was a well-funded advertising and earned media strategy designed to position ACCCE as a responsible, positive player in seeking workable solutions to the climate-change challenge facing our nation and in developing a diversified energy policy that includes coal as a critical component.
The Strategy:
R&R and ACCCE created a fully integrated marketing, branding and issue-advocacy campaign to educate our audiences on the importance of coal in their daily lives. Our strategy was to convince our audiences that through the use of modern technology, coal is cleaner than ever and getting cleaner still, and present coal as a vital component in our march toward energy independence.
The ACCCE campaign focused primarily around a fully integrated marketing approach that used the presidential campaign as a platform for our messaging, resulting in highly visible and well-publicized campaign tactics throughout the year. Outreach consisted of grassroots, earned media, paid media and advocacy tactics that created a "surround-sound" effect targeting each of our audiences through all mediums and communications. Grassroots efforts included street teams, walking billboards, mobile billboards and recruitment and mobilization of an ACCCE Army (supporters of ACCCE and its mission) at presidential primaries, debates, conventions and other key campaign events. Earned media efforts included maintaining ongoing media relations and generating consistent press coverage of ACCCE-related issues and successes. A national television campaign focusing on the ACCCE core-message strategy – along with state and issue-specific campaigns that included news and magazine print, outdoor billboards, and radio and online components – comprised the paid media efforts that supported the overall campaign strategy.
The Result:
Coal is now an active voice in the ongoing energy policy debate and is seen as one of our country's chief sources of energy – both now and in the future.
A recent ACCCE poll conducted in October 2008 showed that nearly 70 percent of opinion elites believe that coal is a fuel for America's energy future. This number compares with just 52 percent expressing the same opinion in May 2008. Furthermore, 47 percent of opinion elites believe the successful development of clean-coal technology will promote energy security by allowing the use of American coal, while at the same time reducing emissions. Additionally, 46 percent feel that developments in clean-coal technology will drive down the cost of electricity.
In addition, our subsequent advocacy efforts inside the Beltway have led to the acceptance and support of coal by both political parties, along with President Barack Obama, as an essential component of the energy discussion that will continue during this administration.

All in all this scenario makes Australia's Bolt, Blair, Marohasy, Plimer and Carter look rather like a disorganised rabble.

One has to wonder how effective the Obama Administration's release of the Global Climate Change Impacts Across America report this week will be in countering the push by polluting industries to maintain what they see as a right to continue producing high greenhouse gas levels.

20 page overview of this report here, US regional fact sheets here and full report here.

Political incompetence in the Senate: surely it is no coincidence............

Heartland Institute scale of fees

The Senate seats of Bill Heffernan, Barnaby Joyce, Stephen Conroy and Steve Fielding all expire on 30 June 2011.

Surely this is heaven's way of giving Australia the chance of a brief respite from over-the-top political incompetence.

Senator Fielding in particular is excelling himself on the subject of global warming as first this statement showed:

We've all bought this idea that man is the problem with carbon emission and therefore man has to change what they do with carbon emissions. That's where we're at the moment. But there are some questions now being asked: is man the problem? And if not, then what are we doing?

And then this exchange revealed on ABC TV Lateline on 4 June 2009 after the senator had attended a Heartland Institute conference:

STEVE FIELDING: ......And I'll be coming back to Australia to sit down with the - Senator Wong and the Rudd Government to share with them and to just to see what their thoughts are and what I've heard from here. Now, what they did say yesterday, the scientists - and, look, I'm not saying that they're right, but they've actually put a very big question about the link between carbon emissions and global warming. Now, what they put forward yesterday was that in fact over the last 10 years, carbon emissions have gone up, but and global - or the temperatures, global temperatures have not gone up. Now, that obviously ...

TONY JONES: Well, I mean, yes, that is their claim, that since 1998, when there was a peak in temperatures, it hasn't gone up. But you'd be aware of the other evidence on that, wouldn't you, I dare say? That Britain's Hadley Centre, ...

STEVE FIELDING: Yes.

TONY JONES: ... which is one of the most respected organisations involved in measuring global temperature has data for global mean temperatures that says 1998 was the hottest year on record; 2005 the second hottest year on record; the third hottest, 2003; the fourth, 2002; the fifth hottest, 2004 and the sixth hottest, 2006. They're saying they're the hottest temperatures ever measured since temperatures were first taken in 1880.

STEVE FIELDING: And so that puts a question on it. But, Tony, you know, you've got to actually look at the facts and figures, which you've put forward a case. I'll need to (inaudible) just to make sure that what I heard yesterday, what are the arguments against it. You've put them forward, but I need to check today with the Obama administration, and I may even check with the Bradley area as well and just to make sure because this is too big an issue to get wrong. And what's worst, if we make the wrong decision, what's worse than that is if we make the right decision too late. And so the issue is that if you look at the graphs, if you look at the temperatures over the last 10 years, yes, they've gone up and down, but they've actually, if you look at the average, it stayed reasonably level, and CO2 emission over that time have gone up drastically. So, the whole idea about that there's a direct link between CO2 ...

If we make the wrong decision, what's worse than that is if we make the right decision too late - no Senator, the wrong decision or the right decision too late are equally disastrous for Australia and I rather suspect from the aforementioned exchange that you have entered the essentially 'anti-science' la-la land inhabited by Heartland members and backers.

What is worse, Senator Fielding, is that the right-wing free market advocate Heartland Institute (partly funded by coal, oil, nuclear energy companies and a water privatisation and big tobacco apologist) obviously targeted you as a gullible fool long before it extended its invitation.

This is what the Heartland Institute says about its relationship with donors and the targets it picks:

The Heartland Institute has discovered a way to get the attention of busy elected officials. We package research and commentary on public policy issues as news, in the form of monthly public policy newspapers.

As a courtesy to donors, we share with them advance copies of the studies they helped fund, and we often solicit their advice on what audiences to target during promotional campaigns.

Steve Fielding could have saved himself those overseas travel costs by either: a) allowing his mouse to do the walking on the Internet and so easily acquire the type of information he is allegedly seeking; b) requesting the Parliamentary Library provide him with research; c) arranging to meet with the CSIRO which might objectively give him an insight into global warming science; or d) visiting communities on the NSW North Coast where coastal erosion and seawater inundation is not a maybe but a very real occurrence for some families.

Climate change deniers still singing the same old song with Marohasy in the chorus

Header for Cato Institute advertisement

There may be a new president in Washington but lobbyists for industries opposed to climate change mitigation measures are still singing the same old song.

According to CBC News at the end of March the Cato Institute ran full-page ads in:

the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. The ads cite evidence, referenced in four scientific papers, that the climate is not changing significantly.

These very expensive ads were signed by 100 'scientists' and George Monbiot has fun with this list, while DeSmog Blog links to an interesting set of API memos.

The advertising campaign appears to be timed to disturb public perception ahead any passage of US climate change legislation and the Obama hosted April climate change summit and, a surprising number of the advertisement's listed individuals are also reported to have taken money from fossil fuel industries.

Among the list of 'scientists' endorsing the ads is one Colin Barton, CSIRO (Retired), Robert M. Carter, PhD, James Cook University and the blogosphere's favourite Australian global warming denier Jennifer Marohasy, PhD, Australian Environment Foundation.

Ms. Marohasy gives some space to the ad on her blog, Andrew Bolt's blog on 1 April also gives it a mention and thanks Professor Bob Carter for the heads up, but Tim Blair doesn't appear to have noticed these ads.

While it seems that Jennifer Marohasy originally worked as a field biologist and is affiliated with the Institute of Public Affairs (which is believed to receive funding from the oil, coal, tobacco and biotech industries) and marine biologist Professor Robert Carter is also a PIC affiliate, little is known about Colin Barton.

Perhaps Tim can make up for letting down the denialist side by finding out if Colin Barton CSIRO (Retired) is the same man who endorsed the 2008 denialist ISCS Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change as Colin Barton, PhD (Earth Science), former Principal Research Scientist, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Australia and/or the person formerly employed by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria as a geologist working in coal also posting on the Internet as Dr. Colin M. Barton.

Age and gender profile of NSW North Coast electorates

It will soon be a new year and, although it won't exactly be a political new day, it will be time for all good community lobbyists to gird their loins and go forth once more to front all three tiers of government and explain our wants and needs here on the NSW North Coast.

Here is a little something which will help in gauging the electorate in which you live; AEC NSW Elector Count by Division, Age Groups and Gender, September 2008.

For those who just like a bit of trivia; this elector count shows that one voter in John Howard's old seat of Bennelong has no assigned gender - and is listed as indeterminate-unknown.
It seems that if you have a gender neutral first name, the good folks at AEC can only assign you a gender if you tell them and 8 people across the state (and 22 across the nation) have forgotten to say.

PDF copy here.

There are now 220 lobbyists on the Australian Government register

At least 32 new lobbyists went onto the Australian Government Lobbyists Register since 1 November 2008.
Edelman Public Relations Worldwide Pty Ltd registered on 17 November.

Edelman has a small but seemingly innocuous client list named for the register.
However, it must be remembered that the Edelman group also acts for GM seed giant Monsanto.

It has taken Edelman's over two months to decide to register after North Coast Voices mentioned its absence from this register.

I wonder how long it will take before it decides to fully list its client base in Australia?

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.