Benno,
We think it is a scandal. Kevin Rudd was a fine guy, - and the prime minister that the people of Australia wanted. But the powerful Australian mining companies wanted it otherwise. So much for democracy.
Read this:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/pers-j07.shtml
Well, Olsen,
Firstly the socialist polemic you linked to is one point of view, but it's not necessarily all truthful - it may seem so from a particular political position, but it's not exactly how most people in Australia see it. So it's not exactly helpful in informing people unfamiliar with local politics and political parties.
The first thing to recognise is that nobody has ever claimed democracy is an efficient form of government. It's messy and complicated, and compromised on many fronts. But overall it delivers a reasonably good outcome for the majority of people. That doesn't mean sections of the population don't get marginalised, but overall and generally on average it's the best we can make of things. A benign dictatorship might be better but these things have a habit of becoming less benign fairly quickly!
I was (still am, I guess) a Rudd supporter but due recognition has to be given to a number of factors. He's intelligent, committed, has vision and energy. He's also a micromanager, makes unilateral decisions without consultation, and has an enormous ego. I believe he wanted to leave a significant legacy of big policy making and to move Australia to a position of greater influence in world affairs. He travelled extensively, participated in major economic forums and generally had Australia punching above it's weight. The issues he was promoting like climate change, whaling, resource taxes etc were all significant, deserving of attention but he moved too far and too quickly ahead of both his own party colleagues and the Australian public. And he became arrogant when his ideas were challenged. It was not just one issue (the mining tax) that undid him but a number of things that cumulatively destroyed his credibility, and he did most of it to himself because he was not inclusive in his management style.
You mention the mining companies. I happen to know a bit about this as I work as a safety consultant in the mining industry. Certainly the major companies like BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Xstrata etc have no loyalty to any country but only to profits. So if mining is markedly more profitable in Australia that's where they operate and if that changed in favour of, say, Brazil, that's where they would invest. The money involved is huge and the investment time frames are long. I am currently consulting to a mine in Western Australia which is in the development stage. The pit is operating at a low level of activity waiting for the gas-fired power station to be finished, the desalination plant to be finished, the processing plant to be finished and the port and ship loading facility to be finished. Two years have passed, another year is likely before they get into serious production, they've outlaid so far $3.5 billion and expect to spend $5.5 billion. Yes, they are able to anticipate making superior profits to make such an investment worthwhile.
The issue for Australia is that along with the jobs, infrastructure etc etc comes the realisation that in 25-50 years most of these big mines will be empty holes in the ground and the industry will have moved elsewhere. So we'd like to slow that down a bit and extract a bit of the wealth from our resource to provide for some social investment that otherwise probably will never be made. Like education and health for our indigenous people on whose traditional lands most of this mineral wealth lies.
Rudd overplayed his hand. In private, the mining companies admit there's some merit in the principle that a portion of excess profit should be returned to the people. They make so much they can afford to concede that. There were three main issues around all this. Firstly, there was no consultation - Rudd just announced it. Second the quantum of 40% was excessive. Some mining executives thought a negotiated outcome around the 20% mark might have received some grudging support. Third, the tax was to be made retrospective on all existing developments - not just new ones.
Finally, after a considerable uproar, Rudd agreed to meet the most senior mining company CEO's for "consultation". They went to Canberra armed with their studies, economic modelling and other data. Rudd listened to them until they finished, then, instead of discussion, announced that "nothing will change" and walked out of the room. They were furious. 24 hours later the mining industry had pledged $100 million to a fighting fund to bring the government down. It was all so unnecessary - Rudd shot himself, and possibly the whole government in the foot by his arrogance. It was then that his colleagues and the party machine decided he had to go. After all, the pursuit of political parties is to gain and retain power.
