It is commonplace in Australian policy debate for groups presumed to be adversely affected by proposed policies to provide estimates of the undesirable consequences of change. A fashionable form relates to predictions of job losses for the group affected, usually accompanied by counter-claims made by the government of the day or other groups in favour

On 30 September 2010, the Select Committee on New Taxes initiated an inquiry into the following matter: (a) new taxes proposed for Australia, including: (i) the minerals resource rent tax and expanded petroleum resource rent tax, (ii) a carbon tax, or any other mechanism to put a price on carbon, and (iii) any other new

‘Minerals in the Australian economy’ is of course a big topic. On the one hand that means it is inevitable that major issues are not discussed. On the other hand it means that the contributor has a lot of scope to select what to talk about. The position here is not to question the peak

The perception of most Australians is that the mining boom delivered unambiguous benefits for the Australian economy, including more jobs, exports, tax revenues and, for the majority of people, higher incomes. But was this the case? This paper looks more closely at the extent to which Australians have, in fact, benefitted from the boom, which

This paper considers the implications for the proposed uranium mine at Jabiluka of the Resource Assessment Commission’s inquiry into mining at Coronation Hill, also within the boundaries of Kakadu National Park. There are some important parallels in the issues and the way they have been treated.