Next step on mining

27 comments on “Next step on mining ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tc 1

   11 May 2010 at 12:16 am

   LOL…..the nat’s make a big company pay more in taxes ! good one.
2. Draco T Bastard 2

   11 May 2010 at 1:15 am

   I’m not going to hold my breath either – National is, after all, in favour of giving our resources away to their rich mates. Hopefully, the next government will do something about it.
3. Bored 3

   11 May 2010 at 6:42 am

   Privatise public land for a toll only Cycleway (for the high tax bracket fat cat), built on the cheap by recidivist chain gangs from Crushers private money making prison schemes . All will be well, our economy will flourish (he said in total hope)………………………

   Capcha: visions hehehehehe
4. Bored 4

   11 May 2010 at 7:41 am

   Serious time Marty, I am not sure that it is a safe strategy allowing mining for a fair lease / tax or whatever price. It holds the miners out while prices are wrong if you go this way with anything that should be totally conserved or hands of you put it at risk.

   What happens when you do this is that the rapacious miner / water miner / grass miner etc compromise and argue it is “safe” to take only 10%, then later they take another 10% as the precedent has already been set. In the end they take the lot. No compromise is the only safe approach to these b*******s.
   • Marty G 4.1

     11 May 2010 at 7:45 am

     Yeah. But remember that mining already occurs on conversation estate that isn’t schedule 4.
     • Bored 4.1.1

       11 May 2010 at 7:50 am

       Mayhaps time to get tough there too?
5. mickysavage 5

   11 May 2010 at 9:10 am

   Abandoning mining on Schedule 4 land does leave the Nats economic ‘plan’ for this country looking even more like a rushed assignment handed in by a first year, though

   But we still have the John Key memorial bike track don’t we?
6. Brett 6

   11 May 2010 at 9:25 am

   “For giving them the right to come and take our minerals and sell them for $1.4 billion of profits, we got $6.2 million.”

   Was this agreement done under Labour?
7. Joshua 7

   11 May 2010 at 9:37 am

   I assume the $6.2 million is the royalty-only figure right? For a accurate economic analysis of the mining industry then you need to add in corporate taxes, wages, PAYE, GST, and flow-on effects to the local and national economy.

   Using your fiqure of a $1.4 billion after-tax profit, at 33% this equates to approximately $700 million in corporate taxes paid. The fact that they only make $1.4 billion in profit from $6.5 million worth of minerals means that there is still $4.1 billion dollars that is spent by the industry somehow – I would guess that most of this money is spent in New Zealand. Or are they somehow taking that offshore as well?

   You are right that we should investigate the royalty regime – and 1% is too low, perhaps the 5% commonly used for Petroleum reserves should be used as well.
   • Bright Red 7.1

     11 May 2010 at 9:50 am

     But Joshua, any business pays those other taxes.

     It’s our gold. we only get a 0.1% cut when someone else comes along, digs it up, and sells it? You’re right, it needs to be more. But if they’re just going to circumvent the royalty regime, some other charge needs to be made
     • Joshua 7.1.1

       11 May 2010 at 9:56 am

       They do – but no one would be paying taxes on those profits if the mining did not occur – i.e, take away the mining, take away the revenue, take away the jobs, GST, and corporate taxes. A mining industry cannot pay taxes if there is no mining!

       The point I was trying to make is that Marty is being intellectually dishonest in his analysis in ignoring the other incomes to the government from the industry.
       • Lanthanide 7.1.1.1

         11 May 2010 at 10:06 am

         I have to agree with Joshua, Marty really just has been incredibly anti-government with all of his recent posts, seemingly to reflexively disagree with anything the government does even if when looked at objectively it isn’t a bad idea. He also uses emotive language to cloud the issue.

         Sure it’s 0.1% in royalties, but Marty just blithely stated the total value was $6.5b and the profits only $1.4b, so clearly the rest of the money is going *somewhere*, and a lot of that would be going to the government in tax. Lets say the royalty rate was 1% – $62m instead of $6.2m on $6.5 is still not much at all. Lets say the royalty rate was 6% – $372m out of $6.5b, that’s a nice whack, but still not earth-shattering figures. Also consider that for every dollar of royalty you’re charging, you’re going to get less back from corporate tax etc. Not to mention that the mining companies might just decide that the royalty rate is too high and scale back, or halt production all together. We don’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
         • Bright Red 7.1.1.1.1

           11 May 2010 at 11:08 am

           Lan. The post isn’t proposing shutting down the mining industry.

           The problem is that they are making $1.4 billion – over 20% profits – with our gold.

           Can’t you see that?
       • prism 7.1.1.2

         11 May 2010 at 10:18 am

         Joshua – Taking a rare thing and destroying the area around to get it is a poor way of getting business and tax and employment. The sort of thing that people with no interest in life do. They are not interested in life on this earth – their interest is in getting things with money, which is a set of trading tokens for obtain things.

         Getting money is part of life but how one gets it makes all the difference to that life. Destroying or permanently changing bits of the world must be done extremely carefully, not as a growth industry for short-term gain.
8. prism 8

   11 May 2010 at 10:05 am

   There must have been some good dinners and bottles of wine costing only $30? each paid for by mining and extraction interests in meetings with politicians. The politician enters through the portals of some prestigious restaurant or hotel dressed well, looking as if on important business, to talk about nationally important business. That would be really boosting to that politician, and perhaps the mining side are acquaintances from the same income strata and mores, or from schooldays, a natural alliance. Reason, fair receipts from mining – the pressure to do something in the true national interest will have to be intense to get action in this slippery area.

   Has National given up the idea of mining in the conservation estate? Or has John Key something up his sleeve in pre-empting discussions with Tuhoe about the Urewera. Government seem to be willing to break all reasonable standards of behaviour with these people, as in the police ‘terrorist’ raid. Perhaps they will try and do a deal, have a certain control over the area, but let us have mining rights over this area here, with your requirements met and providing employment to the iwi.
9. Fisiani 9

   11 May 2010 at 4:35 pm

   So this post confirms that National will keep its promise to do a stocktake and then only allow surgical mining where it can fit with the environment in accordance with the views of the public. Win . Win situation yet again for National.
   • Bright Red 9.1

     11 May 2010 at 5:24 pm

     biggest march in generations, cornerstone economic policy about to be dropped.

     Yeah, win win alright Fizzy, but not for your side.

     talk about your painfully poor spin.
     • mickysavage 9.1.1

       11 May 2010 at 5:29 pm

       Fisi

       You must have typed “surgical mining” about a thousand times on this site.

       Can you explain how there can be surgical mining on Great Barrier where the ore is low grade?
     • Lanthanide 9.1.2

       11 May 2010 at 5:40 pm

       Technically Fisiani is correct, however in the ring of popular opinion, National has taken a beaten.
10. clandestino 10

    11 May 2010 at 4:50 pm

    I agree with Joshua above. There does seem to me disingenuous to say the industry ‘takes’ $6.5b, ‘makes’ $1.4b, rightly point out the royalty is way too low at 1% or $6.2m, but not explain to people what happens to the difference in profit and revenue. I find this is an all too common misunderstanding (notably Lucy Lawless doesn’t seem to get it) and some really think all New Zealand gets out of it is the $6.2m figure. It is too low, I think most can agree on that, but doing it this way is to descend to the level of the right wing tabloid press who don’t even pretend to paint a full picture.
11. tc 11

    11 May 2010 at 5:43 pm

    Hey Fisiani that’s great stand up material….”National will keep its promise to do a stocktake and then only allow surgical mining where it can fit with the environment in accordance with the views of the public…”

    Please stop ….the rapier like subtelty of that gag is redefining the boundaries of humour for me ….it’s just sooo funny.

    Let’s surgically mine your back yard as you’re so taken with it…….sycophants are us eh.
12. sexy coal 12

    11 May 2010 at 6:09 pm

    The subPrime Minister said:
    When asked whether if the government was considering any increases to current royalties, Mr Key said that no increases would be proposed in the budget

    and he muttered:
    ..that current royalties and jobs created by mining activity were sufficient evidence that mining delivered economic benefits to New Zealand.

    ..Yeah Right.
    ————————-
    Wonder how much Brownlee’s management buddies are earning? – and how much Straterra is getting to peddle PR for Brownlee and co.

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/key-no-increase-mining-royalties-budget-122814

    ——
    If National can stop the mining companies ripping off this country, that will really be something.

    I won’t hold my breath.
13. king coal 13

    11 May 2010 at 6:17 pm

    This puts Solid Energy CEO Don Elder on $679,000 for 2005, I believe he is on roughly double that now

    http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/07CEOPAY.pdf
14. king coal 14

    11 May 2010 at 6:23 pm

    No need for more royalties, money is put aside for something else…

    something from the 09 miners strike says that
    Don Elder, CEO of Solid Energy, earned a reportedly obscene $1.27 in 2008
15. Brett 15

    11 May 2010 at 6:31 pm

    The Hate rose to its climax. The voice of Marty G had become an actual sheep’s bleat, and for an instant the face changed into that of a sheep. Then the sheep-face melted into the figure of a National supporter who seemed to be advancing, huge and terrible, and seeming to spring out of the surface of the screen, so that some of the people sitting by their computers actually flinched backwards in their seats. But in the same moment, drawing a deep sigh of relief from everybody, the hostile figure melted into the face of Helen Clarke, black-haired, black-moustachio’d, full of power and mysterious calm, and so vast that it almost filled up the screen. Nobody heard what Helen Clarke was saying. It was merely a few words of encouragement, the sort of words that are uttered in the din of battle, not distinguishable individually but restoring confidence in the party faithful by the fact of being spoken.
    • prism 15.1

      11 May 2010 at 11:10 pm

      Brett I find your post hard to read and understand. For slow thinkers like me how about putting your diatribe in short paragraphs for more effect.
      captcha – ridiculous (Scout’s honour)
      • Brett 15.1.1

        12 May 2010 at 7:16 am

        Next time I speak to George Orwell, I shall pass on your critique.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS