Sick of RSPT already

I wonder when the government's planning to get the legislation for it's Mining Tax through? (Or even whether it would pass the Senate). I'm getting a bit sick of hearing about it in the news - and the question that I always want to put to the mining company bosses you see interviewed is: will you STFU when the uncertainty is over? Journalists seem to be shocked and surprised that companies like Rio Tinto say they're re-evaluating all their projects. Of course they are!! They're likely to make less money on some, and ameliorate the risk on others (as the "tax" is also a rebate on losses). And of course no company is going to approve a huge new investment while the proposal isn't finalised and legislated.

The tax also seems to even out differences in (regularly changing) royalty regimes of the various states by offsetting royalty payments. This would seem to me to meet one of Rio's goals of lessening uncertainty. They say that the proposed tax is the greatest "sovereign risk" in the world for their business right now. But they don't say whether it'll go back to business as usual once (if?) the legislation is passed. Surely at that point it stops being a risk, and becomes an expense to be taken into account.

Outing in the media

Channel 7 (which I virtually never watch - let me see, Reno 911 and Scrubs could be my only occasional vices) has shamefully caused the downfall of yet another NSW cabinet minister. The Yahoo!7 web site ran this AAP story, which implies that the "scandal" has something to do with his use of his minesterial car to get to Ken's at Kensington. In fact all ministers in NSW may use their government cars as their primary form of personal transport, and if he'd been filmed going down to the pizza shop in it, there would have been no story.

The poor guy's dealing with his wife suffering from cancer, and clearly he's got needs that can apparently be satisfied by a couple of hours in the Sauna. Not illegal, not corrupt, not anything to do with his public role. Now I support vocal homophobes that are engaging in gay sex being outed by the media, because it reveals the vacuity of their public pronouncements - but this is just an invasion of privacy.

One wonders what beef Channel 7 has with the NSW government - as this is clearly a destabilisation of the Keneally regime. One also wonders whether Yahoo(must I use the "!") is comfortable with its choice of co-branding with Channel 7. Not that I think this is an item that would bring that relationship into question more than your average episode of Today Tonight. At least The Australian had the decency to call the story into question, but that opinion piece was a slim side-bar to a full page about the story, including a bizarre little article that is a sketch history of Ken's, followed by a screed of cut & paste from their web site detailing the facilities of the club, with plenty of erection and ejaculation double entendres.

Rarely have I seen a better argument for some decent privacy laws in Australia.

I almost feel sorry for Joe Hockey

I'm astounded by the hypocrisy of the media for accusing Joe Hockey of trying to manipulate the media, while simultaneously punishing him for not giving the them figures before his Press Club speech by virtually not reporting its content at all. (Or am I? I guess Joe severely miscalculated, and is is getting pretty much what he could have expected.)

Keep it up Clive

If the government wants to get more of the public on side for the resourse "super profits" tax, then they just need to ensure that Clive Palmer gets more air time on TV (in particular) and radio. I'm all for debating the policy, not the personalities, but Clive is such a throwback to the Bjelke Peterson era of white-shoe fat cats (yes he's also untelegenically obese) that the more ranting about the Communists in Canberra that he does, the more likely it is that the popular perception will be "screw the inequity - as long as Clive and his mates have to pay more, I support the tax". [Clive Palmer was actually one of the main funders of the Joh for PM campaign, which, in the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot style he seems to favour, actually had the perverse outcome of splitting the conservative vote at the 1987 election, and handing Labor victory thanks to increased seats in Queensland, and a national boost to Labor due to a fear of Joh candidates holding the balance of power in a hung parliament.]

Then there are the policy issues of the tax themselves... it's clear to me that the boom/bust cycle of mining (which I winessed first hand as a teen in the 80s, when my dad was constantly switching jobs in that sector, and eventually forced to live in Mt Isa to pay the mortgage, leaving us behind in Brisbane for 9 months) isn't really a great way to exploit the wealth in the ground. It causes unfortunate real estate booms in country towns, skills shortages in the cities, and cyclic displacement of people from their homes - which they're not prepared to move permanently, as the next bust is just around the corner. The structure of the tax, which is discounted for start up projects, will hopefully smooth out the investment cycle to create slower and more sustainable migrations to mining centres, and may result in the streets of those mining towns being at least paved - if not in gold, as the Union says they should be.

Security Theatre or threat to kill?

I can't understand the point of sending fighter jets up to "escort" a passenger plane under bomb threat. Is this just security theatre - which comes at the risk of an exploding passenger plane also knocking out the airforce planes flying so close to it? Or is it an implicit threat to knock the plane out of the sky as a "lesser of two evils", if the passenger plane seems a threat to a large urban population (or tall building)? What realistic help can a fighter jet provide to the passengers or crew of a commercial flight with a bomb on board?