• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Mining and the Media

Status
Not open for further replies.

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
The problem they may have, is our public education system is better than the US and UK systems.

The trouble we have is all our swing voters are in the western suburbs of Sydney and Brisbane.
 

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Everyone agrees they should have the right to do whatever they are doing.

But it doesn't make their actions morally justifiable at all. They want to turn media organisations into outlets for their political propaganda, and if lying to the public conflicts with their propaganda - they don't see a problem.

It's not the end of the world because so far they have pretty much failed. If they think this country is moronic enough to fall for the tactics employed by fox news and Glen Beck they are extremely out of touch.
 

suckerforred

Chilla Wilson (44)
Everyone agrees they should have the right to do whatever they are doing.

But it doesn't make their actions morally justifiable at all. They want to turn media organisations into outlets for their political propaganda, and if lying to the public conflicts with their propaganda - they don't see a problem.

It's not the end of the world because so far they have pretty much failed. If they think this country is moronic enough to fall for the tactics employed by fox news and Glen Beck they are extremely out of touch.

Umm.... Have you seen the government advertising in this country lately? Only difference is that it is on all out let not just one.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
There's a question here which I don't think Moses and baabaa are acknowledging. The media is not just another business. A free and independent media is a pillar of democracy. Without it, you don't have a democracy. When just a handful of powerful business interests own all of the media, it substantially impacts the media's democratic function. That's why media ownership is regulated, albeit by governments too scared of Rupert Murdoch to really stand up to him.

Moses, you raise a second point, which I think is useful. The idea is that anyone can start a media channel and draw supporters. So, if Fairfax gets gagged about talking about certain topics, then another media outlet can open up and take a different point of view. And if people buy right-wing media it probably makes them right-wing to start with. I agree with this up to a point. The fact is that internet publishing has not yet got to the point of challenging mainstream media for big numbers of readers / viewers. It's just too expensive to start your own broadcasting channel or newspaper.

The only alternative to regulating media ownership is to have genuinely diversified, free-market media. That would satisfy your point, Moses, but we're not even close to that reality yet. Until such time, who owns the media, and what their personal agenda is, are issues of national importance.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
There's a question here which I don't think Moses and baabaa are acknowledging. The media is not just another business. A free and independent media is a pillar of democracy. Without it, you don't have a democracy. When just a handful of powerful business interests own all of the media, it substantially impacts the media's democratic function. That's why media ownership is regulated, albeit by governments too scared of Rupert Murdoch to really stand up to him.

This is true. I am by no means in favour of what is going on at the Telegraph, or what could be happening at the Herald if Reinhart's influence increases.

I suppose I see a cable TV channel as to some extent a different animal than that of a large newspaper. There are over 100 channels on Foxtel these days, so people have a far greater choice in what to consume. The issue with newspaper ownership is if the Tele/Oz is Rupert's and the Herald is Gina's, what do you read? But if they had a cable news channel there are plenty of viable, rational news alternatives just a press of the button away.

What they seem to be proposing is a TV version of AM radio. Good coverage of news interspersed with right-wing shock jocks. I don't like AM radio, nor would I watch this channel. But as it appears at the moment I don't have a huge problem with it.

.
 

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
A cable news channel is a good idea. They aren't taking a previously decent news source and making it less factual.

I doubt they will do this though, because no one would watch it. They want to take a TV channel/Newspaper that is already watched by millions and start there.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I agree with Moses and BaaBaa in that it is their right to do so, if they want to. It is naive to think it would be "news" and not opinion, though. Why do it otherwise? That discussion to me sounds more like plotting a distorted view of the truth, which I find a bit off. What really bothers me is that that super-twat (IMO) Monckton is involved.

Yes, to an extent they should be able to do what they want with their money. There are of course cross media ownership laws in this country that go some way to protecting us.

Of course if any media outlet, left or right, reports falsely, then they should be held to account.
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Of course if any media outlet, left or right, reports falsely, then they should be held to account.

A good discussion of the issues on this is available here http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/29/bolt-decision-irresponsible-journalism-illegal-think-again/

Bolt decision: ‘Irresponsible journalism illegal’? Think again

by Margaret Simons
In paragraph 388 of his judgment in the Bolt matter yesterday, Justice Bromberg quotes a phrase from a Privy Council case. It should strike a chill into the hearts of journalists and media organisations in Australia, particularly at this moment in our history.
“The public deserve to be protected against irresponsible journalism.”
So who should do the protecting? This judgment, and the very fact that there is a Racial Discrimination Act, suggests that legislators and the courts see this as their role, at least on matters of race.
The worry being that one person’s irresponsible journalism is another’s forthright and courageous publication. So where do we draw the line?
The question is particularly pointy at the moment, with a media inquiry set up to examine, among other things, the effectiveness of the codes and standards that apply to journalism. We are in the middle of a major push to address “irresponsible journalism”, or journalism that is seen as irresponsible. Nobody who cares about freedom of speech can be unconcerned about where the line is drawn, and who gets to do the drawing.
Having said all that, to dress up yesterday’s decision as a major assault on freedom of speech is putting it far too high. The judgment does not fundamentally change the current rules of the game for journalists.
It is clear that had the plaintiffs taken defamation actions, they probably would have succeeded. The test Justice Bromberg applied is broadly the same as has applied to the fair comment defence in defamation law for most of my career.
If Bolt had got his facts right, if he had made a conscientious attempt to weigh the evidence, then he probably would have won this case even if his words did offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate. He would have been exempted under Section 18 D of the Act, which protects fair comment.
As David Marr puts in his piece in Fairfax newspapers today, Justice Bromberg’s judgment is not an attack on freedom of speech, but on bad journalism. But should such journalism be declared illegal? I think not.
The most fascinating, and in the long term most powerful part of the judgement is his investigation into Bolt’s methods — not only his factual errors, but the way in which facts that did not serve his purpose were ignored. The judgment amounts to an expose of which Media Watch could be proud.
Justice Bromberg analyses the way Bolt built his case, and exposes errors and the way in which other evidence was overlooked.
The idea that even opinion writers should get their facts right is not new. It has been upheld not only in defamation cases, but also in Australian Press Council adjudications in recent years. It is an accepted industry standard. In his column today, Bolt makes only a glancing mention of his many errors, and says “none seemed to me to be of consequence”. That is a gobsmacking statement.
There were so many wrong or distorted facts that the inaccuracy undermined the comment, the core of the articles, which was the allegation that the named individuals had chosen to identify as Aborigines for political advantage. That is why the case against Bolt succeeded.
So why should we worry?
The fact that this judgment is about race, and a racial discrimination case, is not without significance. It makes it clear that when writing about someone’s racial identity, there is an extra range of legal hurdles to worry about.
Let me experiment. And in doing so, I will, to quote Justice Bromberg, use “language and structure highly suggestive and designed to excite” and also use a “derisive tone … provocative and inflammatory language and (including) the inclusion of gratuitous asides”.
So let’s say I call Andrew Bolt an arrogant, dishonest and irresponsible tosser who routinely bends the facts to suit his rhetorical purpose. I can say all that, and my only legal fear is defamation. I can also deride him as an arrogant man without running afoul of any extra laws.
But if I call him an arrogant white tosser, or an arrogant Dutch tosser then I have to worry not only about defamation but also about the Racial Discrimination Act. I can make aspersions about his gender, his occupation and his mental health and worry only about defamation. If I raise his ethnic identity and his race, then there is an extra legal worry.
The test will then be whether I am offending people, and whether I am expressing an opinion in good faith. On Justice Bromberg’s standards the test would include, not only my use of language and my factual accuracy but also an assessment of my readership and my influence — the “harm likely to have been caused” — and this opens a giant can of worms.
Is the audience of Crikey, reading these words about Bolt and his Dutch ancestry, particularly likely to racially stereotype Dutch people, or white people? Is my (limited) influence on the Crikey readership likely to mean that Dutch people will be intimidated?
Should the Crikey audience be protected from my irresponsible journalism?
Justice Bromberg took into account Bolt’s “significant public standing and influence”.
“His evidence suggests that his columns are popular and widely read. They will have been read by persons inclined to regard Mr Bolt as speaking with authority and knowledge. They will likely have been read by some persons susceptible to racial stereotyping and the formation of racially prejudicial views.”
So would it have made a difference if Bolt’s articles had been published in a small circulation literary magazine, or on a little-read blog?
These are unanswered questions, likely to be further examined in the likely event of an appeal.
Whatever the worth of what Bolt wrote, and I think it was highly offensive and wrong, it was in one sense not all that extreme or unusual. Similar views can be heard in many pubs and cafes, on the street, and indeed among some Aboriginal people. Justice Bromberg’s judgment contests the rationality of Bolt’s defence of his words. No problem there. The problem is that the conclusion to the argument is a finding of illegality.
The judgment means that journalists, particularly well-read, influential journalists, are to be held to higher standards than ordinary people. That the public “deserves to be protected” from them. It’s a dangerous notion.
Civil libertarians have for a long while argued that the Racial Discrimination Act is too broadly worded. I agree.
It would be overstating the case enormously to say that freedom of speech is at stake here. Yet it is also true to say that, particularly in the current climate, we should be concerned about this notion of using the law to protect people from irresponsible journalism.
The way to deal with irresponsible journalism is, in almost every case, a mix of self-regulation, argument and exposure. I have argued in the past for better and more meaningful self-regulation. I would have no problem with the publication of corrections being mandated by the reformed Australian Press Council style body now under consideration.
But making “irresponsible” journalism illegal? You don’t have to like Andrew Bolt to find that notion worrying.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
The judgment means that journalists, particularly well-read, influential journalists, are to be held to higher standards than ordinary people. That the public “deserves to be protected” from them. It’s a dangerous notion.

I don't think they they should be held to a higher standard than anyone else, but I certainly think that it is worthwhile applying that standard to them and other public figures first. It will filter down into greater society more effectively than trying to just grab anyone that makes a racial remark.

But making “irresponsible” journalism illegal? You don’t have to like Andrew Bolt to find that notion worrying.

He doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between just simple irresponsible and straight out incorrect/deceitful journalism. If a listed company released information that was 'irresponsible' and therefore affect the actions of it's shareholders or prospective shareholders, you can bet ASIC would be investigating pretty quick smart. I don't like this idea that he seems to have that journalists should have more scope than others.

I do however agree that Bolt's article had nothing to do with race, we wouldn't be hearing about this at all.
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I resent everyone who contributed to the watered down tax including the weak government which allowed it to happen. Not to mention Tony Abbott's cynical opportunism in supporting the miners. How anyone believes his craving for power could be confused with acting in the best interests of Australia is beyond me.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/theyre-our-resources-and-its-time-miners-paid-more-to-dig-them-up-20120308-1un6r.html#ixzz1oYPRkD42

They're our resources, and it's time miners paid more to dig them up

March 9, 2012

Here's something to keep in mind the next time you hear a mining magnate or chief executive complaining about an outrageous assault on their industry. Those minerals they're mining - all that gold, iron ore, coal and uranium - it's yours. You own it.

By virtue of your incredibly good fortune to have been born on, or migrated to, this particular rocky outcrop in the southern seas, you posses an equal claim to all the rich resources lying beneath. ''Australians all let us rejoice … our land abounds in nature's gifts of beauty rich and rare''.

It was not always so clear cut. But around the turn of the 20th century, Australian state governments moved to take ownership of all the minerals under the earth, on behalf of all Australians. The old property law of ''for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs all the way up to heaven and down to hell'' no longer applied.

Today, mining companies don't own the minerals they extract. Subject to some state-based variations and historical quirks, all the minerals beneath the ground in Australia now belong to ''the Crown'' - usually interpreted as state governments - and so, in turn, all Australians.
I think that probably comes as a surprise to many. And it's pretty exciting. It means we get to decide how best to use our mineral wealth to benefit society.

If we wanted to, we could stop mining new deposits and just leave the minerals where they are. But it makes sense to increase our living standards by selling at least some of our minerals to foreigners willing to pay today's very high prices.

Problem is, it's not exactly an easy job digging all these resources up and shipping them abroad. Extracting resources requires a lot of capital investment - levels that would bankrupt governments if they tried it.

It helps to have private companies to dig this stuff up for us. So states government sell mining companies the rights to explore for minerals. Should explorations prove fruitful, mining companies can then pay again for the right to extract them. They also pay royalties to state governments, and ultimately the owners of the minerals. Mining companies should get to earn a tidy return for their endeavours. They take on considerable risks and invest large sums of money. But the minerals belong to us, and the mining companies are supposed to pay us a proper return.

Instead, they've been taking us to the cleaners. In the past decade, the value of Australia's mineral wealth has increased many times over. The usual methods of recouping our share from the miners, state royalties, have failed to keep pace with massive increases in profits because they are applied on a volumes basis, not a profits basis.

But don't just take my word, take that Ken Henry's 2010 tax report: ''The community, through the Australian and state governments, owns rights to Australia's non-renewable resources and should seek an appropriate return from allowing private firms to exploit these resources.
''Current charging arrangements fail to collect a sufficient return for the community because they are unresponsive to changes in profits.''
You see, those same state governments we've entrusted to build properly functioning urban transport systems are also the same governments we entrusted to extract a proper return on our mineral assets.

And guess what, they haven't.

Australian Treasury estimates prepared for the Henry tax review found mineral taxes and royalties declined as a share of total mineral profits from about 40 per cent in 2001-02 to less than 15 per cent in 2008-09.

Henry proposed a new system of taxing mining companies based on the profits they produce, rather than just the volumes they dig up. It was something the industry was asking for, but the Rudd government botched it by failing to consult on the design of the tax.

The big miners spent $22 million on an advertising campaign against the tax and the government under Julia Gillard significantly watered it down. Updated budget estimates released in December show the new minerals resources rent tax will add just $3.7 billion to the budget bottom line next year. It's not enough.

Treasury is now warning of decades of ''razor thin'' budget surpluses. In a speech in Sydney this week, the Treasury secretary, Martin Parkinson, revealed that while mining companies generate about one fifth of profits in Australia, they contribute only one tenth of company tax, which currently reaps about $70 billion a year. Huge investments by the mining sector in infrastructure means they are able to claim large upfront deductions for the depreciating value of those assets.

And so the nation faces a declining tax base that, unless addressed, will increasingly be recouped through higher taxes on individuals.
It's time to recognise that the watered-down minerals resource rent tax fails to address the problem first identified by Henry - that we are not collecting enough of a return on our non-renewable resources. We only get to dig them up once, and at significant ongoing cost to the local environment. We deserve a fair share of the windfall prices being paid for our mineral wealth.

Mining companies will always argue against bearing a heavier burden of taxation. No business wants to pay more tax. But mining companies are not like any other industry. Ultimately, they are service providers to the owners of the minerals they extract - you and me.
Our mining magnates got rich because state governments sold rights to extract Australia's minerals and didn't, as it turns out, charge enough for them.

It's not too late to get some back.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I am a bit confused by this bit:

Treasury is now warning of decades of ''razor thin'' budget surpluses. In a speech in Sydney this week, the Treasury secretary, Martin Parkinson, revealed that while mining companies generate about one fifth of profits in Australia, they contribute only one tenth of company tax, which currently reaps about $70 billion a year. Huge investments by the mining sector in infrastructure means they are able to claim large upfront deductions for the depreciating value of those assets.

If they are claiming deductions on large up front costs, then are their profits truly one fifth? This sounds like a bit of fudging to suit ones point of view?

You can't just say 'this is their revenue - therefore this is how much tax they should be paying', you have to take into account expenses!
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Cutter,

Based on this article, and also adding in my previous thoughts on a fair system (that actually makes sense in relation to non-renewable resources), would you agree with the following:

1. All non-renewable assets should be taxed, not just some of them
2. They should be taxed based on volume, not profit (what is to stop a company going broke while mining millions of tonnes of materials, therefore not paying any tax but still depleting the resource?, and why should smaller miners not have to pay the tax?)
3. The royalty system therefore makes more sense than a profit based system, but maybe it should be altered to be pegged to market prices.

This article also seems to contradict itself a bit. Firstly, it notes that the states own the assets, and then it says that therefore the Australian people own the assets. If the states own the assets, doesn't that mean that each states assets are owned by the people that live in that state. We might not be able to trust the states to gain a fair return on the non-renewable resources (although I think the royalty tax system makes a lot more sense than a profit based tax), but can we trust the federal government to spend the tax money wisely, and not just throw it away on white elephant election promises? Can we trust them to put the necessary infrastructure in place to support the efficient mining of these resources, and the wider communities around this?
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
There two broad points:

1. I don't mind how the revenue is collected, but it must be collected from big and small miners. I'd be willing to back Ken Henry's recommendation.

2. In respect of your questions about trusting the government. No, no more than we could before I posted this article. But I'd rather the government have it and have the opportunity to not waste it than it go to the miners.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Not just big and small miners but anyone pulling out non-renewables if that is what the tax is really about (rather than a quick fix for patching a budget hole). Every single mineral that comes out, not just picking a few more expensive ones!
 

suckerforred

Chilla Wilson (44)
One comment I would make - some of the infrastructure expenditure that the mining companies have entered into are actually because the government of this day, and previous days, have not spent the money that they should have on constructing and maintaining said infrastructure. In light of this I don't have a problem with them being able to claim 'large upfrount deductions' for some of the said expenditure.

Having said that I am wholeheartedly behind the mining companies paying their 'fair share' for the use of 'our' nonrenewable resources. But I also think that this needs to be looked at in conjunction with changes in our tax system as a whole to make it fairer across the board, and changes in our governance so that we do not get the constant rounds of pork barrelling every time an election is in the offering.

We might not be able to trust the states to gain a fair return on the non-renewable resources (although I think the royalty tax system makes a lot more sense than a profit based tax), but can we trust the federal government to spend the tax money wisely, and not just throw it away on white elephant election promises? Can we trust them to put the necessary infrastructure in place to support the efficient mining of these resources, and the wider communities around this?

No on both counts. As someone who has spent many years in resource rich areas it is depressing to see the resources ripped out but due to fly-in, fly-out arrangements, nothing returned to the local communities. They ask for more funding for the local health services, but are told no because the population is not big enough. There is absolutely no regard for the fact that there could be a work force of thousands in the area, but are not counted because they are not 'permenant', it is not regarded as their home, therefore they do not need the facilities there. Still trying to work that one out.

It is not only a question of how many tax dollars we get out of the high earning business. It is also the question of how those dollars are spent and distributed. As one of the 'rural' rsidents of queensland I am fairly sure that I am not the only one who sees the situation as being that we (people west of the great dividing range - you know those big hills that you can see from Ipswich) provide a lot of income for the sate yet have to put up with crap roads, railways, hospitals and schools because we do not have the votes. Brisbaneites, enjoy you flash new hospitals, can I come and live with you while I have to be 1000's of kilometers aways away from home when I am injured or ill because my local, or even semi-local hospital can't cope with anything more then a cut that requires 3 stiches? Selfishness is one of the reason we are in the shite that we are in.
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Not just big and small miners but anyone pulling out non-renewables if that is what the tax is really about (rather than a quick fix for patching a budget hole).

What does this sentence mean? Who other than miners, regardless of the size, takes non-renewables from the ground?
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Then we don't disagree that all miners should pay.

Factored into the price they must pay is the damage to the environment and the loss of the finite resource. Also factored in must be the value of the finite resource. After all, if it belongs to the people and they choose to sell it (acting through their elected government), they should receive a fair price for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top