188 Responses

  1. Benjamin Marks March 9, 2014 at 11:12 pm |

    Here are two of dozens of articles by Lang Hancock about Margaret Thatcher, if anyone is interested: (a.) Lang Hancock, “Australia can learn from Thatcher,” National Miner, September 13, 1976, p. 2; and (b.) Private letters from 1977-78 by Lang Hancock to Margaret Thatcher, pleading with her to talk some sense into Malcolm Fraser.

  2. dale ryan March 10, 2014 at 7:45 am |

    Keep on going Gina , We finally have a voice to tell it like it is. So many believe it is their right to receive payments from the Government and never wondering from where the money will come. I hate that they judge anyone with a good income and not see the hard work that goes into earning said income. This needs to be taught to the young but children are highly influenced by parents and breed a welfare culture .Welfare needs to be directed to the aged and true disability recipients . I wish the ordinary people could see that Tony Abbot has to make hard decisions to save Australia and see what the preceding Labor Goverment has done to Australia.

    1. Warren BUTTERWORTH March 10, 2014 at 10:33 am |

      What Ms HANCOCK hasn’t taken into consideration is the fact that those who are on Old Age Pensions today, worked long hours and hard and they paid taxes that were spent of Hospitals, Education, etc., the same as it is today. These people were also the ones that fought and won the excellent working conditions and wages that the younger generations enjoy today. So what she is saying is that those who have contributed to society in the past are not entitled to anything now. Many were never part of any Superannuation scheme or were only members for a short period. We paid our taxes to get a meager pension, whereas her political friends contribute very little to their Superannuation Fund, they send the country broke, but they get a pension that most workers today only dream of getting. She has no worry at the moment about her future, but if the rescource boomk completely collapses, see if she puts her hand out.

      1. Benjamin Marks March 10, 2014 at 10:39 am |

        Mr Butterworth: I’m afraid you have read what the media have said about the article, but not the article above. Please quote where in the article above Mrs Rinehart said what you claim she said. Thankyou.

        1. rayna March 2, 2015 at 7:38 pm |

          Benjamin Marks,

          your reply to the above Warren Butterworth makes plain EXACTLY what’s WRONG with lots of people(s) in the “western” cultures in relation to both the subject and ‘participants’ of Politics and National debate… Most people DON’T READ FOR THEMSELVES; MORE SO NEVER THNK FOR THEMSELVES!! I believe it’s fear based of course, “you” may actually get a good look at “yourself” and discover “you’re” not really happy with what you might find, find out, learn.
          I did read the above, apparently written by “Gina” Georgie, and think I’d like to hear actual details of her “growth ideas” aimed at the mass of the Australian public. I’d rather like to start with debt management as I believe a sense for debt awareness and control, like most things begin in the home.
          “Gina” has done a bloody excellent job of developing her family business to where and what it is and does and maybe there lies some pointers for the “rest”. Bloody hell! I believe it so much that when bloody Clive put up his hand for a role in Government I hoped so much for some innovation into Australian policy making I voted for him! [or rep. of…] I’d bloody give “Gina” a shot too if she were to stick her hand up… And actually get involved in the Political Sphere>>

          Me, I have plenty of ideas, only forever in short supply of genuine thinkers to discuss with [who aren’t hiding a secret guilt, fault or shame to inhibit willingness]… All “History” repeats itself, good or bad until the “luck” runs out and there then All are in the shit! This is without good conscious effort and appreciation by the bulk all the bloody time. I fear total National Bankruptcy like that we see now in Greece here in Australia in 10-15years time, after all, I don’t believe Australia has ever really “Recovered” from the recession we had to have back following the 80’s bust and the lib’s sell off of nearly all assets, bloody hell if the Government can’t “run a business” like the now Australia Post at a profit, can’t even hang onto that one! This country is in the shit and I think the “average aussie” mentality and bullshit is at the bloody core! The Government is too weak, too inexperienced and of course they then only “worry about themselves”, it’s a double edged sword, Government not left with much to work with.. Bloody hell, I still can not for the life of me understand how, just how both sides of government allowed the government of the day to take responsibility for the insulation scheme F*** UP and not the Tender holders or workers themselves??? The idiot public response I expected, poor management on both sides of government eh.

          I’m going to stop talking just here just now, but to say, Halo Georgie, you got my interest just now, and um, the 9’s show ‘House of Hancock’ really does you all no harm, [unless “appearing” some what common is offensive to you?? I thought it was fine for what it was, a Drama.] really you could send them a box of bubbly and say thank you.

          Cheers All.

      2. chris April 14, 2014 at 2:11 pm |

        Only in the west can a citizen demand their fags, entertainment and booze be paid for by humanity without working for any of it, main one being single parents who can blackmail the system for the whole package, food , clothes, home, education etc with it seems no responsibility . Try doing that in other communities and they would laugh at you. Aged parents should be cared for collectively by their children where possible including arresting their wages at source

    2. Jonathan Creed March 13, 2014 at 1:18 pm |

      So what about the billions of untaxed profits that are shipped offshore? What about the millions upon millions in corporate handouts?
      It’s ironic that a woman who has never in her life had to struggle for money wants to tighten the noose on families who are often wondering how they can do something as simple as keep the electricity running. All those who think she is telling it straight should ask themselves the question…. “What are the Australian people getting out of all the resources being mined?”

      1. Benjamin Marks March 13, 2014 at 1:39 pm |

        Jonathan: What untaxed profits are you talking about? Do you realise that she and her father are often called Australia’s biggest taxpayers?

        As for your comments on Mrs Rinehart and welfare: Please read the article freely posted above that the comments here are meant to be commenting on and stop relying on misleading media stories about it. Here are two passages from Mrs Rinehart’s article where welfare payments to those in need and other government spending is defended, and their continued funding is argued for:

        1. “Without enterprising people paying tax, governments had no money to provide — including what a country needed to do — pay for healthcare, police, defence, caring for senior citizens, roads and helping those truly unable to help themselves.”
        2. “Australians have to work hard or actually harder and smarter to create the revenue to be able to pay that bill. That’s in addition to things we have to have. The essentials like healthcare, defence, police, aged care, roads — the list rolls on — and still pay off our record debt.”

        There are people who oppose government welfare, but Gina Rinehart has never been one of them. An example of someone who opposes government welfare is John Singleton who says:

        No one has a right to welfare, because all welfare is paid for by other people. To admit such a right would, to that extent, turn those who pay it into slaves. [Source.]

        So direct your hate at him and Neville Kennard and other Workers Party veterans, not at Mrs Rinehart.

        You should realise that Mrs Rinehart is your friendly voice of moderation and deserves your support, not your criticism. She is on your side!

    3. sandy west March 14, 2014 at 5:26 pm |

      For so long so many want more and more from the government, they demand it but don’t see that their demands are the workers wages, there is a pattern through the years by different governments,some want to look good for their own glory and give in to the demands and bleed the country dry and in’to big debt ! Then there is other government that wants to keep Australia on track and out of debt and not give our future kids that are battlers and work a dept from past generations to pay off, such greed by some of our day don’t want to understand and ridicule the wisest decisions by responsible government !

      1. Cecilia March 25, 2014 at 3:36 pm |

        I agree with you Sandy.
        I was a single parent for over ten years.
        However, I was lucky enough to be exposed to lateral thinkers such as my mother who was a businesswoman overseas, she believed that one must have good work ethics. I was also exposed to people who made goals and had visions of a better future, people who dreamed and worked hard towards those dreams.
        Unfortunately if we are not fed positive and forward thinking thoughts in our context (community, place of residence, parents, family, friends, etc) we can live a life that is limited, only by our thoughts mind you.
        I wish I had known more forwad thinkers and visionaries in my life. Who knows where I would be now?
        I went to university and competed my Master in Sped in 2010.
        I pay taxes equivalent to what I use to get in welfare now, I pay it gladly because when I needed it the most, I was given a helping hand.
        I look forward to the day that I pay taxes in the hundreds of thousands, because it means my income is much bigger.
        BUT you are right, many people see “government’ as some entity, that has a limitess purse. Not realising that if we just spend, we will be in debt!
        I guess, we really do not know how our money is being managed exactly, I am sure there are lots of errors and dishonesty too.
        I do think we should aim to care for the vulnerable in our society, but as a group we should work smarter and this can only come about IF we change how people think about money and where they want their country to be in 10, 20 yrs time.
        We need to be helping our children to not just think that they are receipients but also people that give back to society.
        This discussion is about a complex social dynamic but it starts with a positive and foreward thinking nation.

        1. Emma May 13, 2014 at 10:44 am |

          Cecily you were also lucky to have support while you were a single parent. Unfortunately today’s budget isn’t so kind to single parents or anyone needing support during times of crisis, or even to aged pensioners or veteran’s children. It takes more than words – from important others – to succeed in life. It takes resources and experience. It takes opportunity. It takes the physical capacity to do so. And if you’re spending 90% of your income on a studio apartment and the other 10% on medication, unable to afford all the doctors you need to see – no matter how many wise words someone once told you, chances are you’ll be dead in a fortnight. Thank you, Abbott et al for changes that are going to kill people.

          1. Benjamin Marks May 13, 2014 at 10:56 am |

            Emma: Mrs Rinehart is on your side! Here are two passages from Mrs Rinehart’s most recent article (“The Age of Entitlement – has Consequences,” which is posted above in full) where welfare payments to those in need and other government spending is defended, and their continued funding is argued for:

            1. “Without enterprising people paying tax, governments had no money to provide — including what a country needed to do — pay for healthcare, police, defence, caring for senior citizens, roads and helping those truly unable to help themselves.”
            2. “Australians have to work hard or actually harder and smarter to create the revenue to be able to pay that bill. That’s in addition to things we have to have. The essentials like healthcare, defence, police, aged care, roads — the list rolls on — and still pay off our record debt.”

            There are people who oppose government welfare, but Gina Rinehart has never been one of them. An example of someone who opposes government welfare is John Singleton who says:

            No one has a right to welfare, because all welfare is paid for by other people. To admit such a right would, to that extent, turn those who pay it into slaves. [Source.]

            So direct your hate at him and Neville Kennard and other Australian Workers Party veterans, not at Mrs Rinehart.

            You should realise that Mrs Rinehart is your friendly voice of moderation and deserves your support, not your criticism. She is on your side!

    4. Cecilia March 25, 2014 at 4:24 pm |

      Just read the article completely.

      My summary of it is Gina suggesting that as a nation we need to reconsider how we view life. She is suggesting we need to look at the big picture, of where our country is heading financially.
      She draws our attention to strong leadership in the past, ie Thatcher.
      She believes that Abbott has a big job to do to change community views on spending and to actually act on behalf of everyone for the better. She does not in any way suggest that specific people lose their welfare payments, however she suggests that
      “What Thatcher did for Britain our own leader should do for us — cut spending, cut waste, cut the shackles and back hard workers.”
      This to me is a general comment. Government should look for areas where spending needs cutting, eg politicians wages n benefits (my idea) and cut waste (waste is prevalent everywhere in the processes of our day to day activity eg when people take advantage of the system n take too many breaks as a for instance etc)
      cutting the shackles to me means allowing people to grow in their thinking, thinking lateraly not narrowly) and of course people that are doing their best should be supported – im thinking new business owners, as the hours are enormous to get a business started, and backing people who are doing their best in their chosen field.
      It is hard though to really back individuals working in government departments or for employers as they face the obstacle of it is not what they know but who they know. So I find this last comment a bit vague, more detail of how that can happen is important.
      The general message is clear though, let’s rethink how we want to live our lives, particularly when thinking of the future. Where will we end up? What will our children have to face.
      Is there anything we can do as a nation to make things better, smarter?
      How can we change the current mindset of people?
      Why do they think like they do, ie entitlement mentality?
      I think all government need to answer that question. Because it is their decisions that have brought us to where we are now. So I guess Abbott will also have to make a good assessment of where our country is and show us all true leadership or not.

      1. Cecilia March 25, 2014 at 4:29 pm |

        Furthermore, we need to ask ourselves what are we willing to do at a grassroots level?
        IN our community? In our family?
        How can we be leaders for change?
        Surely LEADERSHIP is not just Abbott? or government?
        Does not leadership also begin at home?
        Those people that are visionaries, leaders need to rise up and help others to think beyond what is before them, ie immediate needs, immediate self gratification.

    5. gg April 20, 2015 at 6:34 am |

      We all know we have a beautiful country why is Gina and family not made to fix or leave in the condition the country was found in. If a farmer had this problem with rabbits EXTERMINATION would be the answer before repairing the destruction. I would give her a pick and shovel with the unemployed of the country paid generously by Gina and Co to envioromentally fix these eyesores

      1. Benjamin Marks April 20, 2015 at 8:41 am |

        What are you talking about? Mrs Rinehart has not caused any environmental destruction.

  3. Ade Caparas Orosa Manilah March 10, 2014 at 8:46 am |

    I can’t agree more! I think this philosophy.. ‘how life must be lived and spent’ must start from toddler age to school age. It is unfortunate that the young people now have that ‘entitlement mentality’.. as if they are born to be given everything!…..

  4. Brian Carr March 10, 2014 at 10:50 am |

    Ah, the ‘trickle down’ theory, allowing the mega-wealthy to plunder a countries assets in the vain belief that a little bit of the wealth will eventually filter down to the people who are members of the community which owns the land…..can anyone name one country where this theory works for the good of the people ?
    The successful countries of this world are high taxing providers of infrastructure and services to raise the living standards of ALL it’s citizens, not just a few who by accident of birth and circumstance believe they’ve inherited the earth for their own.
    Why is it that some people, who have all that they need and more than they could possibly ever need in a thousand lifetimes, think they’ve earned the right to dictate to others, a doctrine of poverty? Perhaps if these people had actually earned their wealth….designed or made something useful…..discovered a cure for a disease….anything that benefitted fellow human beings, it might be different.
    But to have acquired wealth by doing nothing other than stealing assets from those who really own them….and then lecturing those same people about why they should accept nothing for those assets….is obscene.

    1. Benjamin Marks March 10, 2014 at 10:53 am |

      Brian: How does your comment relate to what Mrs Rinehart actually said, rather than to the misleading media reports about it? Please quote where Mrs Rinehart says what you claim she said. Thankyou.

      1. Brian Carr March 10, 2014 at 3:48 pm |

        My comments don’t have to relate to the words she used, rather the fact that she should lecture to those that don’t have, from a position of unearned privilege enabled by the use of others assets.

        But since you mention it, are we in such a parlous state as suggested in her article ? she along with other neo-con fanatics following Friedman theories would have us in recession in order to pay this supposed debt (nobody can decide the size of) she keeps harping on about.
        Keynes on the other hand would have the government building infrastructure to boost employment and keep money going around, realising of course that the profit/debt intervals are cyclic.

        She does show acolytic Thatcher worship, and suggests we should have such a person running this country, I would much rather have a person of vision in charge, such people as Keating, Whitlam or Gillard. Unfortunately for the country, it appears we’re not ready for someone of true vision, we need to become a little more mature and less greedy.

        1. Benjamin Marks March 10, 2014 at 4:35 pm |

          Brian: What is greedy about Mrs Rinehart saying we should borrow less?

          1. Brian Carr March 10, 2014 at 4:59 pm |

            We wouldn’t have to borrow if there was a more even wealth distribution, after all, the countries assets belong to the people.

            1. Benjamin Marks March 10, 2014 at 5:13 pm |

              Brian: So you want taxpayers to put up the risk money for mining projects? Funny also that you think those who neither discovered nor developed the resources are “entitled” to a percentage of them. Lang Hancock’s words are unbeatable on this:

              In Communist countries and in socialist countries and in most dictatorships and in Australia, the minerals absolutely in law belong to the Crown. They are the property of the State. But they’re useless, under these circumstances, because they stay in the ground. If you want to get them worked, if you want people to put hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money and not the taxpayers’ money into them, you then have to turn round and give the people that are going to put all this risk money up, the right to mine. So there’s got to be a transition at some time from useless cocoon of state ownership in the ground to the active, useful ownership of the people who are putting up the money and that know how to work them. [Source.]

            2. Brian Carr March 11, 2014 at 9:36 am |

              Lang Hancock also wanted to poison indigenous people’s waterholes, and sterilise them, I wouldn’t put too much store in what that greedy prick said.
              Just because somebody ‘finds’ mineral wealth and ‘develops’ it doesn’t mean that they own it all. This country is not called ‘The Commonwealth of Australia’ for nothing, the resources available belong to the people, indigenous and others.

            3. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 10:33 am |

              Brian: The point Lang Hancock was making is that the welfare state creates a cycle of poverty that can’t be broken without drastic measures. This is the same point that respected Aboriginal leaders regularly make. He was not seriously suggesting what you claim he was. But everyone loves to take everything he and his daughter says out of context, because they hate dealing with the problems that the welfare state creates.

            4. Brian Carr March 11, 2014 at 10:48 am |

              So then, is it possible that those remarks also have some indicator for when they should be taken seriously ?
              I think you’re only wishing that he didn’t mean what he said, perhaps in the same way Ms. Rinehart mentions the pay rate African mineworkers get compared to Australian mineworkers ?

            5. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 10:54 am |

              Brian: It is not. Lang Hancock wrote repeatedly in defence of property rights for Aborigines and those who discover resources. As for Mrs Rinehart’s comments on how mining companies overseas often have cheaper labour costs: she said this so that those who want to provide additional taxes and other obstacles to her in Australia, realise that it will make it even harder for her to be able to even operate in Australia because iron ore is an international commodity, so she has to compete with international companies.

    2. Brian Carr March 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm |

      It is my understanding that Ms. Rinehart does not actually have a working mine herself, in fact does she do anything other than lease ‘her’ holdings out to other companies to dig the ore and load it onto ships ? that’s something a government could do isn’t it ?

      She could easily compete internationally if she accepted a reduced profit margin rather than pay crap wages to the people who do the actual work.

      1. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 12:29 pm |

        Are you advocating that taxpayers put up the risk money for mining projects?

        1. Brian Carr March 11, 2014 at 12:41 pm |

          Why not ? if Ms. Rinehart can borrow the money, why can’t a government ? at least then the profits could be shared equitably instead of making one person insanely wealthy.
          Does she operate a mine herself ?

          1. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 12:47 pm |

            Wow. You really think that taxpayers’ money should be used as risk capital to get mines going. Good luck on your crusade. By the way, did you know that before Lang Hancock found enough iron ore to supply the world for thousands of years, the Australian government had an export ban on iron ore because they did not think Australia had enough iron ore to provide just Australia more than a couple of decades?

            1. Brian Carr March 11, 2014 at 1:06 pm |

              It’s not my crusade, and I realise there are too many greedy people who would oppose such revolutionary thinking.

              Now we can find such iron ore deposits from satellite data.

              I’m sure you recall the situation that gave rise to the title ‘Pig Iron Bob’ ?

              Does Ms. Rinehart actually operate her own mine ? (#3)

            2. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 1:16 pm |

              Funny that you are saying that opponents of taxpayers money being risked on mining projects are greedy.

              Yes, I know about Pig Iron Bob. Do you know when the export ban on iron ore was lifted?

            3. Brian Carr March 11, 2014 at 1:43 pm |

              No I don’t know when the ban was lifted, but Menzies got the name in 1938 when he had a battle with unions who banned the export of scrap iron to Japan (presumably to build their war machine with)

              Does Ms. Rinhart actually operate a mine herself ? (4)

            4. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 2:06 pm |

              The export ban on iron was not lifted until the 60s!

              Why do you keep asking that question about whether Mrs Rinehart actually operates a mine herself?

            5. Brian Carr March 11, 2014 at 2:36 pm |

              I keep asking in order to get an answer 🙂

              Could it be that Ms. Rinehart is not actually a miner ? rather a holder of mining rights to certain areas which can be leased to mining companies, requiring not much risk capital at all.
              A bit like the Gallilee Project, the finance coming from the Indian family who feted our politicians at a relatives wedding ? (which is possibly in a spot of bother due to falling coal prices, and internal problems) where all Ms. Rinehart has to do is allow others to rip the coal out.

            6. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 2:58 pm |

              Brian: If there is no risk, then why don’t you do it yourself? If you don’t have the money, then you can just go to the bank, tell them what a sure thing it is, and they’ll lend you the money. And in that same comment where you discount the riskiness of mining, you mention falling prices! I guess this is not surprising coming from you, since you also want taxpayers’ money (and not the money of Mrs Rinehart and big multinationals) to be risked in mining projects.

            7. Brian Carr March 11, 2014 at 3:21 pm |

              🙂 I see you read the response, but still did not address the question I asked 4 times….Does Ms. Rinehart actually have a mine, or does she just lease out to other companies.

              It’s not surprising I guess coming from you (obviously a G.Rinehart acolyte) that she can do no wrong, why shouldn’t she make obscenely huge personal profits from others land without actually doing anything for it (other than by accident of birth) I guess if that sort of person excites you, then we’re from different planets. I would much rather see all Australians benefit from their land and it’s minerals than just a privileged few who attained wealth by dubious means.

            8. Brian Carr March 11, 2014 at 4:28 pm |

              Are you unable Benjamin, or unwilling to let me know whether Ms.Rinehart has a mine of her own ?

              I’m also curious as to the purpose of this blog, is it an homage of your own making, or has it been set up to try to alter the perception of the woman ?

            9. Siobhan March 13, 2014 at 2:41 pm |

              Brian, you are the man!

            10. Benjamin Marks December 10, 2015 at 5:06 pm |

              Brian: Long time, no speak. Hope you’re well. Do you still want to ask me if Mrs Rinehart operates a mine?

    3. I Locked my gate. March 14, 2014 at 6:06 pm |

      Bryan Carr, I applaud you.

      At what point is it beneficial to our nation and or any nation for that matter, to poison our drinking water, carve up the great barrier reef, poison our great Artesian basin, taint the soil in our most prosperous farm land, cut our workers rights, cut the minimum wage and change laws to bully and arrest anyone that stands in the way of greedy money grabbing mining companies, block any media coverage of the war that is being waged against the mining companies by every day tax paying australians.

      The government and the mining companies are putrid beyond belief.
      the rich make the rich richer and the poor poorer, how does that benefit australia?

      1. Brian Carr March 14, 2014 at 6:19 pm |

        I still have trouble believing that we voted ourselves into this situation (I know I didn’t) there was a bubble of hope for the country momentarily, now all the good work has been undone, and the greedy are like a wrecking ball, I just thought we were a bit smarter than that…apparently not.

      2. Benjamin Marks March 15, 2014 at 4:14 pm |

        Mrs Rinehart is not doing any of the things you claim. She is not lowering wages. She is creating new jobs. And she is your friendly voice of moderation on this issue (and every other issue too), because she does not want to abolish the minimum wage, unlike senior Australian high-profile businessmen John Singleton and Neville Kennard who argue that the minimum wage actually hurts the poor and unskilled more than the rich. Here’s a short fun video on this.

  5. William Atkinson March 10, 2014 at 2:30 pm |

    Gina, Give your $20 Billion to the poor and needy, and I am sure you will feel relieved of your burden!

    1. Benjamin Marks March 10, 2014 at 4:32 pm |

      Mr Atkinson: What point in the above article by Mrs Rinehart is your comment in reference to?

  6. Cj March 10, 2014 at 2:36 pm |

    That’s too funny. Gina banging on about the left not cutting welfare. It was only a year or two ago that the ALP government introduced means testing on a whole range of government welfare including private health insurance rebates. Where was Gina and her thoughts about the age of entitlement when the current PM bitterly attack the government for cutting welfare? Where is Gina and her comments on the current PMs plan for a massive increase in welfare via paid parental leave? Finally, did Gina say anything to Howard and Costello when they introduced so much unsustainable welfare, when they took us beyond our means?

    The little opinion piece sounds too much like one sided politically motivated class warfare. Until Gina takes on Abbott these are just hollow words.

    1. Benjamin Marks March 10, 2014 at 4:30 pm |

      Cj: She has been talking about this issue since the 1970s. She is not attached to a particular party, but to particular free enterprise ideas. So when the Labor Party is better for free enterprise than the Liberal Party, then she and her father support them. For example, here is Lang Hancock in 1983:

      If the Labor Party is genuine in its belief in socialisation of the industry, the best way to achieve it would be to hand over government to the so-called Liberal Party. [Source.]

      So don’t believe what you read in the newspapers, and do some research at http://www.LangHancock.info at the very least. The video featured there is very critical of the Liberal Party too.

      1. Haydon March 11, 2014 at 3:53 pm |

        I am totally over people quoting Margret Thatcher a woman who befriended Pinochet and gave him refuge in a British hospital.I personally met a woman who as a student was doused with petrol and set alight by soldiers under Piochets ordersOther student were thrown to the sharks out of helicopters and so on.
        Why quote from a woman who will go down in history held in the same regard as Augustas Pinochet who as the bible might say “it would be better had he not been born…she too.

        1. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 4:02 pm |

          Haydon: Thanks for your question. In the article that has the Thatcher quotes, the reason for quoting them is given. Thatcher’s foreign policy is not the subject of the article. I personally am a Ron Paul fan.

    2. Anne-Maree March 10, 2014 at 4:55 pm |

      Gina, please be clear and tell us what welfare payment/s you want to be cut.

      1. Benjamin Marks March 10, 2014 at 5:21 pm |

        Anne-Maree: I think it is a general distaste for everything wasteful and counterproductive. Her father Lang Hancock had some beautiful comments on what should be done:

        … pass no more legislation of any kind in either House. … unwind all legislation that has been passed over the past 20 years. This must be done on the basis of “the last to come, the first to go” so as to avoid lengthy and futile argument as to which, if any, legislation should be allowed to remain on the statute books. [Source.]

        1. Anne-Maree March 10, 2014 at 7:39 pm |

          So she has a general distaste of welfare or “entitlements” but can’t say what payments should be cut??? Maybe you can?

          1. Anne-Maree March 10, 2014 at 8:04 pm |

            you know… since you work for her and all.

            1. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 10:35 am |

              Anne-Maree: I do not work for her, her agents, her company or even her industry. I never have worked for them, and I have never received any money from them.

          2. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 10:41 am |

            Anne-Maree: Mrs Rinehart is your friendly voice of moderation on this issue (in fact, on all issues). In contrast, free-market advocates like John Singleton actually oppose the welfare state altogether. For example:

            No one has a right to welfare, because all welfare is paid for by other people. To admit such a right would, to that extent, turn those who pay it into slaves. [Source.]

            Now, is there anything in Mrs Rinehart’s actual article posted above that you want to talk about? Anything you disagree with?

            1. Anne-Maree March 11, 2014 at 8:03 pm |

              “Australians have to work hard or actually harder and smarter to create the revenue to be able to pay that bill. That’s in addition to things we have to have. The essentials like healthcare, defence, police, aged care, roads — the list rolls on — and still pay off our record debt. Something has to give, we can’t do all”

              I was pretty clear. I want to know what she thinks isn’t essential. What has to give?

            2. Benjamin Marks March 12, 2014 at 11:06 am |

              Anne-Maree: It is clear even from the passage you quoted that she thinks those things she lists and other standard items (which is what she means by “the list rolls on”) should continue to be funded by the government. One thing she is clear has to give, is less obstacles in the way of mining projects.

              But again, on this as on all issues, she is your friendly voice of moderation, as the links and quote in my previous comment clearly show.

    3. Gordon March 10, 2014 at 5:42 pm |

      ” It was only a year or two ago that the ALP government introduced means testing on a whole range of government welfare including private health insurance rebates.”

      The horse had already bolted by then, the country was in record debt. Too little too late!

    4. dale ryan March 13, 2014 at 8:37 am |

      How can you be so misinformed please go take a look at what the Whitlam Goverment did with regard to hand outs and like Gillard broke this country leaving massive debt to be salvaged by the Libs

      1. Brian Carr March 13, 2014 at 12:03 pm |

        What a load of absolute twaddle you do spout…Whitlam and Gillard have done more for Australia than all of the conservative governments combined, ‘broke this country’ ? please, do the research before you parrot the slogans Mark Textor put into Abbots mouth.
        Whitlam, Keating and Gillard were leaders with positive vision, the policies they delivered were forward thinking and beneficial. The conservatives have only one (rather basic) idea as a policy…accumulate wealth at whatever cost to the people and environment, a policy detrimental to a thinking caring society. When and if these conservatives ever mature into thinking adults, they will see what fools they once were.

        1. Benjamin Marks March 13, 2014 at 12:16 pm |

          Are you the same Brian Carr who wants billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to be risked on mining projects, so that Mrs Rinehart and foreign multinationals do not invest in Australia?

          1. Brian Carr March 13, 2014 at 1:01 pm |

            Well yes Gina, as a matter of fact I am, and I’d much rather invest taxpayers money to generate the profits that you’ve reaped (among others) than say give Murdoch a billion dollars (as we just did) or spend billions giving wealthy working women (who just don’t need it) paid parental leave, or perhaps spending taxpayers money to make war on Irak, or Afghanistan just to please the Americans….billions wasted there, or even buying 86 stealth fighters at $90 million each, again, just to please the Americans. Just imagine how much development of the country could be done with those sorts of investments ?

            1. Benjamin Marks March 13, 2014 at 1:32 pm |

              Brian: You want billions of taxpayers’ dollars to be risked on mining projects, so that the evil Mrs Rinehart and the evil foreign multinationals do not risk any of their money in Australia!!!

              The tax refund to Mr Murdoch is not a handout. As for maternity leave for the wealthy, the war in Iraq, etc., I oppose all that government spending. And way more.

            2. Brian Carr March 13, 2014 at 1:47 pm |

              Well, if the government had invested money in mining, you and the foreign multinationals wouldn’t be as wealthy, ensuring a more equitable distribution of the lands riches.

              Mr Murdoch is a traitor, he traded his citizenship purely to feed his insatiable greed. I would charge him with treason if I could, for destabilising an elected government using his media resources. He should be jailed in the UK for the phone hacking affair, but just like the rat that he is, he left it to his editor to take the rap. The fact that he was born here is a national embarrassment.

  7. Gordon March 10, 2014 at 2:54 pm |

    The problem all stems from Labour’s waste – no doubt about it.
    No matter what a government’s policies are, they should be able to balance the books over the short term!!!

    Pathetic, moronic, limelight seeking Rudd and Co!!

  8. William Atkinson March 10, 2014 at 4:26 pm |

    I’m just so sorry for this loveless woman!

    1. Benjamin Marks March 10, 2014 at 4:31 pm |

      Mr Atkinson: Why do you call Mrs Rinehart “loveless” please?

      1. Anne-Maree March 11, 2014 at 8:43 pm |

        Probably because she is the richest woman in the world and wants to pay people less??? Just a guess.

        A loving woman would never be the richest woman in the world. A woman with a little love would at least think being the richest woman in the world is enough and give all future profits to charity.

        1. Benjamin Marks March 12, 2014 at 11:13 am |

          Anne-Maree: She does not want to pay people less. She pays all her staff way above the minimum rates. She wants to ensure that her projects are not loss-making, so that she and her workers and customers don’t need charity. As the late great high-profile Australian businessman Neville Kennard said:

          If there was as much public acclaim for Capital Preservation as there is for Capital Dissipation we would all be better off. Capital, preserved and re-invested, brings benefits at least as much as capital dispersed in philanthropy. [Source.]

          Also, what do you think of Adam Smith’s famous line below?

          It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

        2. Joe Goodacre March 13, 2014 at 4:48 pm |

          Anne-Maree from Mac U?

        3. sandy west March 14, 2014 at 5:57 pm |

          So all would be good if Gina never had the ability to create wealth and was just an ordinary woman with no ability, then all you who knock such would have to go elsewhere to criticize,shame on you all to discredit such a Lady that made welfare a lot easier for this country,?

  9. Ant Adams March 10, 2014 at 5:30 pm |

    Does Benjamin Marks work for Gina? As it seems he us the only one replying to the comments or do you run this forum?

    1. Benjamin Marks March 10, 2014 at 5:41 pm |

      This is a genuine grass-roots fan-site. I have never received any money from Mrs Rinehart, her agents, her company or even her industry.

      1. Anne-Maree March 11, 2014 at 8:38 pm |


        1. sandy west March 14, 2014 at 5:59 pm |

          little unintelligent minds can only laugh !

      2. Joe Goodacre March 13, 2014 at 4:49 pm |

        Good on you Benjamin – as a fan of Gina’s too, I appreciate you posting her article. Always good to see a fellow libertarian taking up the fight.

        1. Benjamin Marks March 13, 2014 at 5:12 pm |

          Thanks mate.

  10. Anne-Maree March 10, 2014 at 7:58 pm |

    If Australia isn’t cheap enough for you then go somewhere else. Why are trying so hard to stay??? This is all a scare tactic. Go on Gina, leave it in the ground. You will be begging for it eventually. All Australians should be entitled to the wealth our natural resources bring not just the lucky few. Thats what you are Gina, lucky. You got lucky when you were born.

    1. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 10:47 am |

      Anne-Maree: Funny you how unashamedly think you and other Australians who have done nothing to discover and develop these resources, deserve a share in them.

      1. Anne-Maree March 11, 2014 at 8:19 pm |

        No the millions of Australians didn’t inherit the opportunities she did. And neither will future Australians when the resources are gone. If I was lucky enough to have her wealth I would give it all away. I would give it to people in poverty. I would give it to people who have to watch there children starve. To people working as sex slaves to provide for their children. I would give it to the people that devote their lives to help children terrorised by war and those trying to stop child prostitution. I would give all my billions to help stop the atrocities of this world. What do you devote your time and money to? Do you realise your doing the work of evil? “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” Do you think Gina is rich???

        1. Benjamin Marks March 12, 2014 at 11:17 am |

          Anne-Maree: Again I can do no better than quote Lang Hancock in response to you:

          In the brief period of its much maligned life, [capitalism has] relieved much suffering, brought more wealth and more happiness to more people than all the prophets, saints, politicians, econuts, reformers and “do-gooders” combined. [Source.]

        2. Joe Goodacre March 13, 2014 at 5:22 pm |


          It’s true that other Australians didn’t inherit the opportunities that Gina did. This is not Gina’s fault though – if our parents took the risks Lang Hancock did we could have been in the same position as Gina ourselves. Inherent in any system of property ownership will be that some parents and grandparents will be more successful than others.

          Regarding the resources all being gone – the resources that we think we have, is limited by what we’ve currently dicsovered. As prices rise, more money is spent finding more minerals. To truly exhaust the minerals in Australia may take thousands of years. One thousand years ago we were struggling with the concept of the wheel – so it’s fairly safe to say that if society is still chugging along then, we may be relying on completely different resources.

          Speaking of giving money away to all these worthwhile causes – this seems a good idea in theory. In practice though, charity is not as simple as simply giving things away. Doing so can make problems worse, or strip people of dignity which may their best long term hope of being prosperous.

          As to Gina doing the work of evil – this is a bit melodramatic. There’s a whole lot of projecting going on there and it’s got nothing to do with Gina.

          It may be difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. I’m not a biblical scholar, but I think envy isn’t a welcome trait there either and it seems envy seems to drive much of the emotion on these boards.

          1. Brian Carr March 13, 2014 at 5:51 pm |

            Bill Gates seems to have found a way to distribute his wealth to worthy causes without too much trouble, and he didn’t have the luxury of inheriting his wealth.

            Envy ? no way, I’ve absolutely no ambition to have the wealth Ms. Rinehart has, I’m afraid it is obscene in my view for one person to accumulate so much money when so many people around the world are suffering.

            1. Joe Goodacre March 13, 2014 at 6:01 pm |


              It’s simply wishful thinking to say that Bill Gates has been distributing money to worthy causes. One can hope that, in some cases one can assume it’s possible. No one though can say that’s definitely the case though, and there may have been some instances where the money has been wasted. Good intentions are easy – good outcomes are much harder.

              It is still envy to desire Gina’s wealth, even if your intention is to distribute it to others. You would be envious of her ability to be charitable in that instance.

            2. Brian Carr March 13, 2014 at 6:16 pm |

              American business magnate, computer programmer, investor, philanthropist and author, Bill Gates, has a net worth of $77.1 billion as of 2014. The software giant and current richest person in the world co-founded the largest computer software company in the world, Microsoft, with Paul Allen.

              The company officially established on April 4, 1975, with Bill Gates as the CEO. He stepped down as Microsoft’s CEO in 2008, to concentrate with his charity work through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A charitable foundation he founded with his wife, Melinda. He is now the world’s second-richest person and United States’ richest person.

              Since becoming billionaire, Bill Gates has since donated over $28 billion to charities and encouraged over 40 of the world’s wealthiest to sign his “Giving Pledge,” aim to donate the majority of their wealth to charity during their lifetimes. He started giving to charity in 1999, when he donated $16 billion in Microsoft stock to his family foundation. With Warren Buffett as one of the biggest donor, the foundation is now one of the biggest philanthropic institution in the world.

              His charity tackles AIDS, tuberculosis, polio and funds famine-resistant crops to fight hunger mostly in Africa.”

              You obviously DON’T read the posts, I said I’m not envious of her wealth, and I’m not, I find it obscene for one person to accumulate that much wealth. I mentioned Bill Gates because at least he’s doing something worthwhile with his money.

            3. Benjamin Marks March 13, 2014 at 6:36 pm |

              Brian: You want billions of taxpayers’ dollars to be risked on mining projects, so that Mrs Rinehart and foreign multinationals do not invest in Australia!!! So having said what they should not invest in, you are now saying what they should invest in. You are a real ideas man! Mrs Rinehart wants to ensure that her projects are not loss-making, so that she and her workers and customers don’t need charity. As the late great high-profile Australian businessman Neville Kennard said:

              If there was as much public acclaim for Capital Preservation as there is for Capital Dissipation we would all be better off. Capital, preserved and re-invested, brings benefits at least as much as capital dispersed in philanthropy. [Source.]

              Also, what do you think of Adam Smith’s famous line below?

              It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

            4. Brian Carr March 13, 2014 at 7:17 pm |

              To be quite honest, I don’t really give a rats arse what Ms Rinehart does with her money, fate has dealt her a hand, and history will decide whether or not she was a good or bad person.
              As an Australian, I’m ashamed of how we’ve treated the indigenous people since we invaded their country, especially the way they’ve been disinherited of their land, particularly by the miners, they were just uprooted and kicked off their homeland so the greedy miners could dig it up to sell.
              We have the potential to create a utopia on earth except for the fact that as a species, we’re quite primitive at this stage, and greed is one of the traits keeping us that way.
              People can be judged by the company they keep, Ms. Rinehart has been associated with people like Abbot, Bolt, Murdoch, the IPA and other such white trash, that may or may not be the case in fact, but she does nothing to dissociate herself from them, so one can only assume the media’s reportage is correct.
              There is only one thing I can predict will happen to her, she is mortal, and she will die, as will we all, when she nears that stage, she can reflect on whether or not she has lived a good life and done good things with the situation she, by accident of birth, found herself.
              For the rest of us untainted by obscene wealth, we have to endure this corrupt government for a little while longer until they can be consigned to the waste bin of political life here, and then begin to unravel the bastardy they have committed and continue to commit, in their one term of office.

            5. Joe Goodacre March 14, 2014 at 7:41 am |


              For someone who doesn’t care what Gina does, you have a lot to say about her. Anyone taking time to comment on these boards would probably lose the right in an objective person’s eyes to say that they don’t care.

              Regarding treatment of Aboriginies – why are you ashamed? Did your relatives treat them poorly, or do you feel shame for the actions of people unrelated to yourself. Does this feeling of shame extend to how the German’s treated the Jews, or the Japanese the Chinese. What other burdens fall on your shoulders?

              None of my ancestors to my knowledge treated the Aboriginies poorly and even if they did, I can’t go back in time. Shame appears to be an entirely missplaced emotion in this context.

              Regarding invading – can you name a country that hasn’t been invaded at some point in it’s history? The Aboriginies settled here at some point as well, is there some unwritten law that says that if you settle here first, everyone has to cram everywhere else, regardless of how low the population density was. Regardless, the average person coming to this country, even with nothing but the shirts on their backs has made a go of it – take the Vietnamese refugees for instance. This indicates that Australia provides the opportunity for prosperity, regardless of prior suffering. The issue no one likes talking about is that the Aboriginies (unlike other peoples who have suffered much in their history) have stopped playing the victim card, moved on and started living in the present. Miners nowdays do nothing of the sort you are referring to – there is extensive community consultation and it is often the majority in those communities that are pushing for opportunities to come so they can break the cycle of dependency.

              Everyone experiences greed – are you the exception? You want to take what others have worked for – why is that not greedy?

              Regarding utopias, please spare us. The worst dictators have been those seeking to create a Utopia on this earth. History is littered with massacres when those masses of people happened to have their own plans that didn’t fit some pre-determined Utopia.

              The company you describe below is assumed to be bad – why? Given that the only reasoning you offer is a racial slur, this would suggest that no other good reason exist.

              Correct – Gina will die, we all will. Your judgment that the only good Gina can do is to give away the great opportunity she was born with. Others disagree – I like cars, houses or lots of other things built with steel. A lot of the poor like those things too. I think Gina bringing more iron ore to the market and making it more affordable for everyone to buy these things is a good thing. I don’t begrudge her profitting along the way – not many of us work for nothing, why should she? Gina’s taking big risks and could boom or bust. Big rewards are required otherwise why would anyone do it.

              All this talk of ‘obscene’ wealth is a little emotional. Again – why do you care? If the most Gina is doing to hurt you is being the daughter of Lang and existing, what does that say about you? Your wealth to someone in Africa is probably obscene – you don’t take up their plight of course because you probably think it’s different… different or hypocritcal. Who knows?

            6. Joe Goodacre March 14, 2014 at 9:26 am |


              No one is disputing that Bill Gates is rich and has given away a lot of money to charity.

              Whether those billions have been beneficially spent and not wasted, is not known. Bill probably doesn’t even know. It may fit your preconceived view that is worthwhile, charity is good andmining iron ore is bad, however that’s just wishful thinking.

            7. Brian Carr March 14, 2014 at 11:17 am |

              ‘None of my ancestors to my knowledge treated the Aboriginies poorly and even if they did, I can’t go back in time. Shame appears to be an entirely missplaced emotion in this context.’

              Is it indeed ? so you’re content knowing our country stole babies from mothers arms ? uprooted communities from their ancestral homes to be confined to ghettos in unfamiliar and inappropriate country they had no idea how to survive in ? merely so we had unfettered access to the land they once enjoyed and thrived on.
              True, you can’t go back in time, but you can do something to compensate them by helping to alleviate the appalling conditions that exist in the ghettos they occupy.
              The utopia I speak of bears no resemblance to the example you mention, my utopia consists of a situation where everyone has a meaningful existence, a shelter, adequate food, and the ability to raise a family, with education, health care a right. I can only presume utopia to you means paying African workers $2.00 a day to make you even more wealthy.
              What makes you think I want to ‘take’ what others have worked for ? are you thinking because I suggest that you are making too much profit from the resources the people own ? or that you expect taxpayer funded infrastructures to support your ventures and increase your profit ? or the fuel subsidies you receive from taxpayers are an entitlement ? or that a superprofit tax is inappropriate ?
              The company I describe as distasteful, I do because of their actions and deceitfulness, and if you can’t see that, there’s nothing more I can add.
              Gina taking big risks ? possibly, but ‘big’ is a relative term in this case, what is a big risk to me is merely loose change to Gina.
              Being the daughter of Lang and existing is somewhat flippant, I’m more concerned about her using her wealth to adversely influence things I care about.

            8. Joe Goodacre March 14, 2014 at 1:15 pm |


              Talking of snatched babies, confining pople to appalling ghettos doesn’t relate to Australia’s experience at all. Of course being so emotional about it all, you’re not going to believe whatever anyone says on our history.

              Even if the worse of what you believe was true, that is no different to what has been experienced by many people in different contries over the course of history. Tragedy and abuse are the norm historically yet many people from different races have succeeded despite these setbacks and without compensation. I think the Aborigines can succeed as soon as people stop making excuses for them. It’s racist to paint the Aborigines as the only group of people that can’t get past historical wrongs. I think that they’re probably more capable than you make out.

              The utopia you hope for is a pleasant dream – who would be against that. Unfortuntately the rest of us have to deal in reality. Human nature means that most people are apathetic about those they don’t know, and when people have power they abuse it. Market based systems are the only ones where people harness their self interest (or greed), at the same time while helping others. You and I both don’t know who built our computers – they helped us, without even knowing us because of their own self interest. It’s nice to give government the power to take from one group of people and give it to another, however it’s based on a naive view of history that says people are power aren’t greedy themselves and never abuse such systems. I want the same outcomes as you, but perhaps experience has made me a little wary of making grand statements that everyone deserves this and that and giving power to a random bureaucrat is not going to create its own set of problems.

              I don’t want people to work for any less than they voluntarily choose to do. African’s are poor precisely because they don’t have stable market systems. Africa is full of little utopias run by dictators who are enacting their dreams of everyone having a meaningful existence. The problem is that they result in outcomes of people having $2 per day – you share their same visions, but don’t recognise that the consequences of some autocracy in Africa that terrorises it’s people are the same consequences of the nice sounding ideas you propose. Unfortunately for them and you, human nature and reality got in the way of grand dreams.

              Regarding owning resources in the ground, why is your claim to resources in Australia, better than that of an African to those same resources. What moral law says that the artifical lines drawn on a map that show Australia mean you get to own those, but an Indonesian doesn’t? The only consistent justification for ownership is based on someone providing the effort and work to find them and bring them to the market to sell. You won’t see that of course, you’ll say that you own resources in Australia, well because you were born here, but then rat on Gina for owning resources that she owns, where the rights were at least bought by her father when people thought that they were worthless. You’ll find some reason why the Indonesian or African don’t own Australia’s resources, but you do based on some lines drawn hundreds of years on a map. People will see through that though. I agree that they shouldn’t get txpayer handouts – but neither should they pay royalties or taxes to fund your dictator utopian schemes either. You can run your utopian schemes funded by money voluntarily given to you, and Gina will do the same. Let each and let live. You won’t accept this of course, because deep down you know you need force to fund your schemes, whereas Gina can offer iron ore and plenty of people will pay for that.

              This is meant to be a free country. If the worse thing that Gina has done to you is have different opinions, count yourself lucky that you’re not an innocent victim of an African dictator enacting one of your socialist schemes.

              As Gerard Henderson says – keep morale high – who knows, maybe one day we’ll get to experience the wonder of Brian’s Utopia.

            9. Brian Carr March 14, 2014 at 3:30 pm |


              Talking of snatched babies, confining pople to appalling ghettos doesn’t relate to Australia’s experience at all. Of course being so emotional about it all, you’re not going to believe whatever anyone says on our history. ‘

              I’m sorry to disappoint you, but it IS the Australian experience (unless of course you only read Andrew Bolt’s and Keith Windshuttle’s version of Australian history (which involved reading the official government record, and what government functionary is going to put the truth about what they did in an official record) all you have to do is talk with the people who suffered these atrocities….these are the people I believe, certainly not people who’s idea of treating aborigines is to poison their waterholes, and ‘breed them out of existence’
              So, you believe because tragedy and abuse has happened in different countries, it’s the sort of thing we should abide here (I think you need a reality check)
              As the oldest continuously surviving race on the planet, who have successfully existed here for about 40,000 years before they were invaded by a greedy white race who wanted to ‘poison them’ give them disease infected blankets and the like, purely to steal their land is absolutely disgraceful and Lang Hancock was one of those involved. The indigenous owners have only had 250 years experience of the scourge of white invasion, not really enough time to physically adapt to our inferior ways of life with alcohol, disease and concept of ‘land ownership’…you expect them to be as resilient as other races ?
              You have no concept of what the land means to them, and how intricate their relationship with it is, it to them is not just a place to be dug up and sold as it is to you. Hypothetically, what if the Indonesians invaded the country, took your comfortable house, put you on a plane and dumped you in Mongolia, never to return, made you speak Mongolian, forbade you to practice any of the Xmas, Easter, NYD celebrations you have, how would you feel ?

            10. Joe Goodacre March 14, 2014 at 4:29 pm |

              Brian, we’re not on the same page regarding Australia’s history – no point arguing that one.

              The point is simple regarding tragedy elsewhere – most of us could look back in our past and find some tragedy or abuse. We don’t and are better for it. Why are the Aborigines different. You’ll find it’s difficult to describe why the Aborigines should be victims to their past, but everyone else shouldn’t without resorting to race – that seems like racism to me.

              Since no one born today has lived for 250 years, I can’t think of anyone who has had the luxury of adapting to the vices of western civilisation. Immigrants who have successfully assimilated here haven’t had the luxury of 250 years either. It sounds a little ludicrous to think that being Aboriginal creates a special category of adaptation that is longer than any one individual can live.

              Yes they are expected to be like other races – that is what not being racist means. To argue for racial differences is racism.

              As to having no concept of what having land means to them… it probably is not much different from the rest of humanity. People have always had special attachments to their place of birth and where there ancestors are from. As to being here 40,000 years as an achievement – I’m not impressed. I don’t think there’s anything that special about simply existing, it’s like a participation award in sport events. There are other cultures that have been wiped out in history that probably would have existed to if they had been as isolated as the Aborigines. Some one would say the fact that they didn’t change much in those 40,000 years isn’t much of an achievement at all. Of course these comments are all highly contentious and un PC – I’m not sure that’s an argument against them though. As long as people treat them as victims and make excuses for them on the basis of their race (despite the fact other people coming here from just as much hardship have done fine) then they’re probably not going to live as happy, healthy and financially secure lives as others who say forget what happened years ago, to people no longer alive – what am I doing with myself now.

              The hypothetical experience you are relating regarding Indonesia sounds tragic – but we don’t need to go into hypotheticals. My wife’s ancestors hated the Turks for what they did to Malta. Different cultures have been wiped out there over the last thousand years in Great Britain where my ancestors are from. The English smashed the Scottish which according to your logic should impact me because of Scottish ancestors on my Mum’s side.

              Apoligies Benjamin that our comments have hijacked this thread on a topic unrelated to the post.

            11. Brian Carr March 14, 2014 at 5:20 pm |

              I realise that you subscribe to the sanitised Andrew Bolt version of our treatment of the Aboriginals, such a pity you don’t face the truth.
              Have you not heard of the organised Aboriginal hunts in Tasmania to wipe out the race ? (which was achieved not all that long ago)
              Have you not heard of the massacres that occurred because Aborigines killed a cow or a sheep for food (they’d been used to hunting game, and when the whites brought sheep and cattle to the land, they saw them as food, which they are)
              White people have had thousands of years to acclimatise to the use of alcohol and develop a tolerance to diseases, you expect Aborigines to have these same tolerances after 200 years ?

              The land is sacred to the Aborigines, every part of it is involved in their spiritual life, they are guardians of it (unlike us) they are/were part of it.

              They ARE victims of our shameful treatment of them, it was only in the 1970’s that we considered them human enough to vote….that is disgusting.

              So you’re not impressed by continuous existence for 40,000 years ? how about the fact that before we invaded, Aborigines only spent approximately 2.5 hours a day looking after their survival needs, the rest of the time was spent on music, art, storytelling and enjoying the environment, I’d consider that quite some achievement.

              The ‘hijack’ you mention IS related to the post as Benjamin/Gina’s wealth came from stolen Aboriginal lands.

              I guess people who subscribe to the same anglicised version of history will never know the truth about the situation….poor fellow my country.

        3. sandy west March 14, 2014 at 6:02 pm |

          That’s why you have nothing to give because of your ability, But Why Knock Gina in every which way ?

          1. Joe Goodacre March 15, 2014 at 12:06 pm |


            I note that you haven’t provided justification for why you own those minerals, and other people around the world don’t – is that acceptance that there is no consistent reason?

            We’re not going to agree on Australia’s history. Given that you reserve a special hatred for our history (which is mild when compared to the history of conquest in other countries), that would suggest that it’s phony outrage.

            I note that you haven’t addressed the absurdity that people can acclimatise for periods longer than they can live. Black or white, we are all born into this world ignorant of what alcohol and it’s effects. All people can see the destructive tendencies of alcohol as the grow up. You could argue that the average Aboriginal sees greater destructive effects of alcohol than others. Despite this evidence, people choose to do it anyway. So when you say that whites have had thousands of years to adapt and I point out that no person of white skin colour has lived for 1,000 years, you’re really trying to hide the fact that you are arguing that if you have two people born at the same time, skin colour means that they are predisposed to being alcoholic or not. I personally think that whether to drink or not is a choice, and that arguing for racial differences to predict differences in choices is racist but I’ll leave that to others to judge.

            On the issue of disease that is a different story since people don’t choose to get the measles or small pox (as opposed to choosing to drink or not). It’s quite possible that Aboriginals didn’t have the same resistance to diseases as Europeans. This is not the fault of the Aboriginals or Europeans – it simply represents that life can be cruel. Nowdays, that doesn’t seem to explain the differences in standard death rates, as the leading causes of Aboriginal deaths (which are many times what they are in the rest of Australia) appear to be lifestyle diseases.


            As to the belief that the Aboriginal is a guardian of the land and we’re not, that appears to be simple Romanticism – the ideal of the noble savage. It’s a little elitist to think that the person who buys a property in Western Sydney, builds their home, tends the gardens and lives it to their children is an exploiter not a guardian, but the Aboriginal tribes who didn’t progress beyond the stone age (so therefore weren’t able to improve the land) were guardians.

            The assertion that Aboriginals weren’t allowed to vote until the 1970’s is simply wrong and the Australian Electoral Commission disagrees with you.


            Sure it was a complicated history, but I don’t think you can have it both ways. One can’t argue that Aborigines were incapable of adapting to the vices of western civilisation, yet they were capable of understanding political systems and making informed votes. Either Aborigines aren’t capable of looking after themselves, and therefore aren’t autonomous individuals or they are autonomous individuals how are responsible for their choices and capable of having a say in the parliamentary systems of the country.

            Correct – I’m not impressed that the Aborigines didn’t evolve beyond the stone age in 40,000. I don’t blame them, but neither do I romanticise it either. There comes a point where reality makes romanticism of the noble savage look a little silly. For instance, some islands in the Indian ocean have barely been touched for thousands of years and after the Boxing Day Tsunami, tribes started shooting arrows at the rescue helicopters. For me it was people in loin cloths shooting arrows at a metal rescue helicopter that shattered that notion. I see inventing the wheel, antibiotics, flight, ships, computers or going to the moon as an achievement. Not a bunch of people painting with sticks and telling stories around a camp fire in loin cloths. Again there’s nothing wrong with that, but to call it an achievement is again giving out participation awards to everybody.

            All of the above means that I’m largely unsympathetic to claims which wish to pretend the world is 20,000 years younger and people like Gina shouldn’t be able to develop resources that they or their parents have found or bought.

            1. Brian Carr March 15, 2014 at 5:00 pm |

              Hmm, it’s a pity you didn’t actually read the PDF (http://www.aec.gov.au/Education/files/history_indigenous_vote.pdf) if you had you would find that I was wrong about the indigenous vote date, it wasn’t 1970 at all, it was 1966, my apologies for that 🙂
              We aren’t going to agree on Australian history, I tend to believe the truth about it rather than the sanitised white version you obviously prefer….makes you feel more comfortable I suppose ?
              Whites have had thousands of years experience with alcohol, it’s in our DNA because we’ve had so long to acclimatise as a race.

              Oh yes, we are perfect guardians of the land we occupy, evidence available in the number of species we’ve made extinct, the rape of the forests we’ve committed, the damage mining has done despite contractual requirements by mining companies to restore the land to the condition they found it in being ignored, the degradation of farmland by opportunistic agricultural practices. The destruction of wetlands at the mouth of the Murray by unsustainable irrigation policies upriver.

              Yes, I finally see your point about a culture in existence continuously for 40,000 years, with an intricate legal system, exquisite art and music, plenty of food and having to ‘work’ far less than we do to survive. What were they doing ? oh yes that’s right ‘ painting with sticks and telling stories around a camp fire in loin cloths.’
              They must have been sooo envious of our society, how they would have loved to have a part in Passchendale, or been with us in Ypes, they must have lusted for mustard gas, maybe some were envious of Auschwitz, they would have enjoyed that don’t you think ?….perhaps some of them would have preferred an experience with Pol Pot what do you reckon ? I believe rather than sitting around a campfire telling stories and singing, they could have been sharing life with us in Hiroshama and Nagasaki, damn, when I think about it, they missed out on so much, they didn’t even know about the potato famine and that over a million people died because of it, why, they’ve probably never heard of ethnic cleansing (even though it was used against them). They certainly missed out on the Tsarist war against Circassia resulting in one and a half million deaths, and guess what, they were probably so busy ‘painting with sticks’ that they never heard of Stalin and his atrocities, what was it 3.3 million deliberately starved to death ?
              Yes I can see that avoiding all the above mentioned shit, and existing quite happily for 40,000 + years is unimpressive to you, all I can conclude is that extermination of people, nuclear weapons, poison gasses, killer drones and the like seem to impress you, I think you’ve got a long way to evolve before you get to the level Aborigines were before we invaded them (somehow I just don’t think you’ll get there)

            2. Joe Goodacre March 15, 2014 at 6:06 pm |


              You asserted that Aborigines didn’t have the right to vote until 1970. I said that was incorrect and the AEC disagreed with you, however that it was a complicated past. You continue to maintain your original assertion so for the benefit of others, the following comes from the AEC website linked previously…

              ‘But the (1967) referendum didn’t give Aborigines the right to vote. They already had it. Legally their rights go back to colonial times. When Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia framed their constitutions in the 1850s they gave voting rights to all male British subjects over 21, which of course included Aboriginal men. And in 1895 when South Australia gave women the right to vote and sit in Parliament, Aboriginal women shared the right. Only Queensland and Western Australia barred Aborigines from voting.

              Very few Aborigines knew their rights so very few voted. But some eventually did. Point McLeay, a mission station near the mouth of the Murray, got a polling station in the 1890s. Aboriginal men and women voted there in South Australian elections and voted for the first Commonwealth Parliament in 1901.’

              I’ll leave others to judge whether this affects your credibility and your assertions of Australia’s supposedly appalling history and whether your outrage is simply phoney.

              It is surprising that you would argue that Whites are better at making choices regarding alcohol because it’s in their DNA. What other racist things can we draw out from this line of reasoning… Aborigines are new to firearms and parliamentary democracy. They’re also new to the wheel too. Does this mean that since they haven’t had thousands of years to acclimatise like whites, we should expect to see poor shooting, an inability to vote and poor driving skills in their DNA too? As they say, with friends like you, it would seem the Aborigines don’t need enemies.

              Without the clearing of forests we wouldn’t have farmland. With mines, we wouldn’t have iron ore and steel, or coal and electricity. If your ancestors hadn’t done those things, you wouldn’t be alive today. It must be a terribly unhappy existence to hate the actions of your ancestors and to therefore implicitly wish that you didn’t exist yourself. Given that you’re making these arguments from the luxury of a property that would have been forest previously, and typing on a computer that is only made possible by the degradation you speak of, it must also be terribly upsetting to be hypocritical as well. The reality is that some of the cleanest air and water exists in Australia and that our environment has improved over the last 100 years. It’s poor countries that dump their sewerage into rivers. It’s poor countries that clear forests to burn wood. It’s poor countries that don’t have fertilisers so they need to clear more forests to provide farmland. I like the environment, but I don’t think we should apologise for using it to better our lives. The Aborigines believed in manipulating the environment to serve their needs as well – take fire-stick farming. They just weren’t as good as us at it.

              The history of western civilisation is full of the terrible things you talk about. I’d make a couple of points regarding that though:

              a) it’s good that you know about those terrible things, but it’s unfortunate you haven’t seen the common denominator in all those examples – those terrible things are the outcomes of government intruding into the lives of individuals – this is something which you support (hence my earlier comments that plenty of people in the past have tried to enact similar utopias to what you want and that it doesn’t end well) ;
              b) it wasn’t all beer and skittles in Aboriginal history either. Plenty of brutal tribal warfare. Apparently it may not have been so great for Aboriginal women back then.


              Of course I wasn’t around back then, so I don’t know for sure, but given it’s not so great for Aboriginal women now either, there are legitimate questions to ask.


              Of course Aboriginal women have you as a friend to point out that Aborigines haven’t acclimatised to western standards of treating women. It’s not in the DNA yet, as you would say. Maybe in another thousand years after people like you stop making excuses for poor choices, they might stop having some of these problems.

            3. Brian Carr March 16, 2014 at 4:51 pm |

              “Finally, in 1965, Indigenous people around Australia gained the same voting rights as other Australians when Queensland followed the other states and permitted Indigenous people to vote in state elections.”
              page 8


            4. Joe Goodacre March 16, 2014 at 5:38 pm |


              The quote I provided from the AEC indicated that some states had the right to vote for Aborigines as far back as the 1890’s – and noted in that same quotation that Qld and WA were exceptions. You have noted that in 1965 that restriction was removed in Qld meaning that all restrictions were finally removed. I agree with where we have finally ended up, but this is a lot different from your original (and now demonstrated as misleading) assertion that Aborigines were not allowed to vote until 1970.

              I’m interested to see what intellectual contortions you employ to distinguish why your excuses for Aboriginal alcoholism don’t apply to Aboriginal rates of domestic violence.

            5. Brian Carr March 16, 2014 at 5:48 pm |

              They gave Aborigines the right in the 1890’s, but took it away two years later, it subsequently surfaced in various guises, but it was as the AEC mentions in the pdf, not until the late 60’s that universal votes were allowed to Aborigines. It’s not misleading, it’s pretty clear really.

              I’m sorry but I find your question about domestic violence a little confusing, are you able to clarify ?

            6. Joe Goodacre March 15, 2014 at 6:07 pm |


              You distracted me again of course – on what basis do you have a right to Australia’s minerals again?

            7. Brian Carr March 15, 2014 at 6:31 pm |

              I suppose because my taxes paid for infrastructure, education of, defence of, administration of the means to provide the selling of the mineral wealth by Gina.
              My fathers taxes paid the same for provision of the same for Lang ?

              Guess that gives me a stake in sharing the profit too huh ?

            8. Joe Goodacre March 15, 2014 at 7:07 pm |


              Firstly, unless you or your father were high net worth individuals the total taxes you both are expected to pay in your lifetimes will only cover the costs of services and infrastructure you use in your lifetime (think roads, schools, medicare, police and pension etc). Put simply the wealthy pay the lion’s share of tax in this country because of the proportional system – the average to below average wage earners receive either what they pay in or more from the system.

              Secondly, if it were the case that taxes made Lang and Gina’s wealth possible misses the fact that every Australian has benefited from the same system and could have made the decisions those two made – therefore to achieve their wealth Lang and Gina must be bringing something over and above to the table. Said another way, other people’s taxes made your very existence, education, good health, transport and opportunities possible to – does that mean they own you? The answer is of course not – everyone has benefited from the services taxes have provided, they own themselves and the differences in wealth measures the unique contributions people make over and above this foundation provided by taxes.

              Thirdly the bulk of the expenditure in mining exploration and infrastructure is privately funded. Literally billions of private expenditure goes into the ports, rail networks, excavation and processing facilities that make these operations possible.

              Fourthly, despite your belief that your or your families taxes made this all possible, prior to Lang and Gina’s involvement Australia was prohibited from exporting iron ore because we were deemed to have too little of it. Without private involvement and investment the iron ore was simply worthless rocks in the ground. Iron ore is one of the most plentiful minerals in the earths crust. Africa has plenty of it, that is worthless because few people want to risk their money to find it and extract it. The Aborigines sat on billions of tonnes of it for tens of thousands of years and it was worthless. It was worthless prior to Lang finding it and staking a claim on it. Even after he staked a claim on it, it’s worthless until someone ships it to the market. Seems like your ‘ownership’ doesn’t put iron ore into the blast furnace.

              So your ownership wouldn’t appear to be justified on a ‘I’ve paid for those minerals’ basis – any others?

            9. Brian Carr March 16, 2014 at 7:41 am |

              The amounts we paid are irrelevant, collectively we own the resources.

            10. Joe Goodacre March 16, 2014 at 10:12 am |


              You are asserting that you own the minerals as justification for your claim to own the minerals. ‘We own them because we just do’ doesn’t normally cut the mustard for reasoning.

            11. Brian Carr March 16, 2014 at 11:31 am |

              We own the minerals by being a citizen of the country the minerals are located in.

              I’m still confused by the purpose of this blog, was it set up by a PR company at Ms. Rinehart’s behest to try to alter public perception of her ?

              Does Ms. Rinehart actually own a mine ?

            12. Joe Goodacre March 16, 2014 at 12:16 pm |


              I can see you like throwing in distractions to confuse people. Let’s indulge those for a second.

              I don’t know why this blog was set up – but let’s indulge your speculation (that this blog is a PR stunt by Gina) for a second. Most people who come on here, including me are capable of making up own minds regardless of who is paying for the blog or what agenda they may have. I don’t care who is paying for the blog, but neither do I ask whether you’re a paid stooge of the Greens either. Why – because I trust neither yours nor the blogs points at face value and evaluate for myself whether they make sense or not.

              I don’t know whether Gina owns a mine or not and again it’s completely irrelevant in my view. What bearing does it have on any of the points you have made, either then try to try and appeal to populism by suggesting that Gina isn’t really contributing anything to Australia. In my opinion those sort of tactics don’t cut the mustard either.

              As to owning the minerals by being a citizen in the country that the minerals are located in. Two issues arise from that:

              a) why draw lines of ownership based upon lines on a map drawn a couple of hundred years ago. Why don’t people of the world own the minerals. Why is your claim to ownership of those minerals greater than a child in Africa?

              b) it would appear from previous points that you have made, that part of your beef with Gina is that she inherited wealth. How can you with any consistency be outraged at her being born into wealth when your own claim for ownership of the minerals in this country is based solely upon the fact that you were born into this country.

            13. Brian Carr March 16, 2014 at 1:16 pm |

              This blog hasn’t changed my opinion of Ms. Reinhart (fwiw) either.

              ‘A paid stooge of The Greens’? 🙂 more an unpaid individual who happens to agree with a lot of their philosophy, as well as agreeing with a lot of Communist, Socialist, Social Democrat, Democrat, and Keynesien Capitalist philosophies.

              Guess then, we can only assume this blog is like a little Gina Fan Club ?

              The reason I ask about mine ownership is to try to ascertain whether Ms. Rinehart is a bona fide miner, or merely a leaseholder by inheritance, who makes a fortune subleasing the mining licence ?

              ‘a) why draw lines of ownership based upon lines on a map drawn a couple of hundred years ago’
              Now you’re talking, I think you’ve got the makings of a Global Communist, why indeed heed “lines on a map” by your reckoning then we are a united world, untainted by countries and borders, no more refugees ?, no more smuggling ? , no world wars ?

              ‘b) 🙂 It would appear that you’ve just proven my point, thank you. If Ms. Rinehart can be ‘born into wealth’ then I have been too, the commonwealth, by birthright, I and all other Australians have ownership of the riches of this country.

            14. Joe Goodacre March 16, 2014 at 2:57 pm |


              By continuing to speculate on why this blog is here, you appear to have missed the point that any agenda behind it is as irrelevant as people perceiving there to be any agenda behind your own comments.

              Lets assume you’re correct that Gina doesn’t own a mine (the answer to this, I don’t know). Whether Gina owns a mine or not is only meaningful if you are against inheritance and parents working hard, taking risks and leaving what they have produced to their children. Your disagreement in that instance is with your parents and grandparents for not taking the same risks or being as productive as Lang.

              As to a), I note that you haven’t addressed how your claim to ownership can be legitimised by lines on a map arbitrarily drawn a couple of hundred years ago. I’m not sure what your comments meant, other than to indicate that you haven’t understood the implication of the question. It is inconsistent to think that events which led to the drawing of lines on a map hundreds of years ago justify your ownership of the minerals, but that these same events hundreds of years ago don’t justify dispossessing the Aborigines. I’m merely pointing out inconsistency in your own arguments and not making judgement on the morality of either of these two statements.

              As to b), again you have failed to grasp the implication of the question.

              Firstly, I point out that it is inconsistent to begrudge Gina wealth left to her, while believing that you can own mineral wealth yourself by being born in Australia. Rather then recognising that inconsistency, you have merely repeated your same argument – going further down the rabbit hole so to speak.

              Secondly, there is a difference between the wealth Gina was born into and your claim for wealth based on being born into lines on map. In relation to Gina’s claim to to these minerals, her father expended significant skill and energy finding the resources and removing federal state embargoes which prevented exports. Lang furthermore expended significant skill and effort bringing together the various parties to start mining. Prior to Lang’s involvement the dirt in the PIlbara was worthless. His contribution gave the iron ore in that region value and he passed that legacy down to Gina in the same way that anyone’s parents could have. Gina has benefited from the same opportunities that were available to any one of us. I don’t begrudge her that and consider Lang as a good example for anyone who wants to work hard to leave their family better off.

            15. Brian Carr March 16, 2014 at 3:28 pm |

              Lang’s’ significant skill and energy’….he was a passenger in a plane flying through a gorge and thought the red cliffs reminded him of rust, so later he checked and found out it was iron ore……:) sounds more like good luck to me.
              His efforts are just lobbying, easy to do when you’ve got plenty of money and come from a privileged background.

              So Gina doesn’t recognise ‘lines on a map’ ? then how does she stake her claim ? if it’s all right for her to stake a claim based on these very lines, why not me and the rest of Australia sharing this wealth based on the same lines ?

              The Pilbara might be worthless dirt prior to Lang, but for 30-40,000 years before Lang, it was extremely significant to the residents culturally and physically.

              🙂 🙂 “Gina has benefited from the same opportunities that were available to any one of us”…..yeah right.

              I don’t begrudge her either, she can do what she likes, as long as she doesn’t insult the rest of the people by saying they don’t work hard enough. Bet the hardest work she’s ever done is sign a cheque.

            16. Joe Goodacre March 16, 2014 at 4:06 pm |


              It’s a common armchair critic tactic to mock the efforts of others as easy or down to luck. “I wasn’t as lucky’ become a useful excuse an ego can come up with to explain a person’s own lack of achievements – ‘give me a plane, place me in a gorge after a storm and I would have found the iron ore too’ and ‘I could have stitched up the deal with Rio Tinto and removed export restrictions too’. Sure Brian – since it’s unlikely (but still possible) that you’ve made your own wealth by demonstrating any of those skills to date, I guess we’ll have to take your word for it.

              Gina’s claim is based upon her father finding the minerals, mapping their location, testing their quality and removing obstacles placed by others to their extraction. That is no different to a farmers claim to their crop due to combining sun, earth and seed, or a bakers claim to their bread from combining flour, water and heat. Her claim is based upon producing something of value. It’s vastly different from claiming that because you’re born between lines on a map those minerals are yours.

              Regarding the Pilbara being significant to the Aborigines, you can’t have it both ways. If your ownership of the minerals is justified by lines on a map, then those same lines on a map dispossessed the Aborigines and supplanted their claims for cultural significance. If you want to argue that the minerals are the Aborigines and not yours, though incorrect it at least has the benefit of being consistent. Arguing against the dispossession of the Aborigines while still claiming ownership of the minerals where they were dispossessed seems a little self serving.

              Gina was born in Australia. That is the same opportunity we all had. Gina was left an inheritance from her father. Again all of us could have been left fortunes by our parents – there’s no law saying that your parents couldn’t leave their wealth to you. Your derision on this point seems plain and simple to be misdirected at Gina and instead of your own parents. Personally I think you shouldn’t be agitated by either Gina’s good fortune or your parents – it’s misplaced in the case of Gina, and ungrateful in the case of your parents. If you’re going to have a whinge though, at least direct it in the appropriate direction.

              All this talk of you not begruding Gina… if this is what you say regarding people you’re ambivalent about, what do you reserve for those you dislike? Regardless, I don’t think Gina’s insulted ‘the rest of the people by saying that they don’t work hard enough’. Most people I know aren’t bludgers and the feelings of anyone who is bludging aren’t my concerns anyone. Again with this armchair critic talk of ‘all Gina is done is sign cheques’ – Brian what you don’t know about the world of business and the work involved to get Gina to where she is now would fill more than a few books.

            17. Brian Carr March 16, 2014 at 4:28 pm |

              Now your putting words in my mouth to suit your argument. I wouldn’t have found iron, because I’m not interested in it, I don’t want the burden of her wealth, I’m not jealous of her or anything about her, I wouldn’t want to be associated with Lang, I don’t care about her (anymore than I care about the rest of humanity)

              I am a bit puzzled though about your motives to defend, promote, or even explain her with such adulation and zeal…..it’s almost as if your are her 🙂

            18. Joe Goodacre March 16, 2014 at 4:40 pm |


              It would be entirely consistent with your inflated belief of yourself that entertain for a second that Gina would spend a weekend arguing away with you. Alas, though you may be the champion of Aboriginal rights, environmentalism and knocking the wealthy off their ivory tower, you’re only jousting with a procrastinating DIYer who enjoys arguing with myself (you’re basically me a decade ago). Or maybe I could be on the payroll of one of Gina’s PR companies, but love Gina so much I do it weekends as well!

            19. Brian Carr March 16, 2014 at 3:46 pm |

              On reflection and a different topic, is there any reason not to consider Ms. Rinhart to be an environmental terrorist ? more lethal then any terrorist movement yet seen ?

              She is trying to sell the massive Gallilee Basin coal reserves, despite all the scientific advice is saying leave coal in the ground, it is carbon, it is already stored underground.
              By trying to dig it up and flog it before it is shunned by the rest of the world and becomes worthless, despite knowing that if released into the atmosphere, it could possibly result in the breakdown of conditions necessary to sustain life as we know it, apart from being immoral, is it high level terrorism ? Is she proceeding with this venture knowing the consequences ?

            20. Joe Goodacre March 16, 2014 at 4:27 pm |


              Sellers of coal being environmental terrorists is complete nonsense.

              Firstly, let’s not get ahead of ourselves regarding global warming. Maybe it is occurring, maybe it isn’t. Maybe it’s a problem, maybe it isn’t. One thing that is for sure – with true science, an ordinary person doesn’t have to rely on a consensus to know if a hypothesis is true. Appealing to consensus is an anti-science activity. We trust the science in planes and bridges not because a consensus tells us to, but because we see planes fly and bridges withstand the elements. Currently observations aren’t matching model predictions and haven’t done so for over a decade. Maybe something to worry about will pop up in the future, but that scenario isn’t here yet. Since you don’t live in a cave, talk of environmental terrorism is just another example of phoney outrage.

              Secondly, worrying about global warming is a luxury that the majority of people in the world don’t have – it’s the ultimate example of first world privilege. When you talk of holding the sellers of call responsible for eco-terrorism, you’re really condemning buyers of coal. Since poor countries are major importers of coal, you’re effectively saying you would rather that they starved or froze to death – all of this while continuing to enjoy your own obscene wealth and carbon footprint (relative to an African). If you gave up everything you had and lived in a cave, I would think you foolish, but at least consistent. All this outrage while enjoying the benefits of exactly that which you condemn looks a little inconsistent.

            21. Brian Carr March 16, 2014 at 4:46 pm |

              It is occurring, if you’re a denier, then you’re wrong, you don’t know how the scientific community works, it’s time to put your climate ignorance in your back pocket and get out of the way while responsible people try to address the problem.

              Third world countries starving or freezing to death because they can’t get coal….bullshit, it’s now cheaper to construct renewable power generation systems than coal fired ones. It’s the fossil fuel sellers promoting that myth, scaremongering as usual (until of course they sell their polluting products)

              Australia’s clean energy policies of the Abbot government are a global joke, China and India already have policies in place that leave our idiotic ones for dead.

              I totally agree with you about my carbon footprint, but I DO live in Australia, the worst per capita polluter in the world.
              I didn’t however vote for a government (the ones that went to the Indian wedding with Gina)so indebted to the fossil fuel industry that they ignore the warnings given to them.

              Worrying about global warming is far more than a ‘luxury”, GW has the capacity to bring down society physically and financially (as the latest NASA report warns)

              Ah, but I guess that’s all irrelevant so long as Gina makes a profit huh ?

            22. Joe Goodacre March 16, 2014 at 5:21 pm |


              Using the word ‘denier’ is unseemly. No one is stopping you from using it of course, but the intended connotations with Holocaust denial denigrate the Holocaust. Of course if global warming was another phoney outrage for you, one would predict you would continue to use it because phoney outrage means that the ends justify the means, regardless of the hypocrisy or lack of principles along the way.

              We’re not going to agree on how the scientific community works or global warming obviously.

              I wonder if you read what you write sometimes… if it were true that everyone was greedy and looking to profit and renewables were cheaper then renewables would be built everywhere and wouldn’t require subsidies to survive. One of these statements can’t be true – which would you like to pick?

              China is has 26% of the worlds coal power stations despite only having 16% of the worlds population.


              As to China and India have better environmental policies than us – it seems China and India disagree with you – India is planning 455 new coal power plants compared to 363 new plants proposed in China.


              This dwarfs new coal plants proposed in Australia.

              That you didn’t vote for the government is a convenient excuse for lambasting everyone else for their carbon footprints without downsizing your own to that of someone in Africa. You really do care, but how can you be expected to downsize if others aren’t going to you. This is not evidence of phoney outrage at all.

              We’re not going to agree on the costs vs benefits of global warming either.

            23. Brian Carr March 17, 2014 at 10:29 am |

              Global warming denier related to the holocaust ? good lord man, how do you get there ? (the red must be kicking in I suppose.)

              It matters not one whit whether you and I agree on global warming or not, it is happening, you do realise, it’s not like picking a footy team that you like, this is serious.

              And you also realise I presume, that the Guardian article you judiciously cherry picked is 2 years out of date ? and the other one is from the World Coal Association (well der!) and even more out of date, 2011……couldn’t you find any actual relevant examples ?
              If you wish to read up to date energy news, try this from a few days ago.

              “if it were true that everyone was greedy and looking to profit and renewables were cheaper then renewables would be built everywhere and wouldn’t require subsidies to survive.”
              You would think so wouldn’t you ? I guess you realise the power of the coal lobby transcends common sense, and they’ve got their fingers so far up Abbot’s bum that his eyes water when he talks about coal. (I guess you know that the coal industry is subsidised also)
              C’mon mate, admit that you’ve been a silly old fossil fool too, when the penny finally drops and you understand what’s going on, you can get on the renewable train, it doesn’t discriminate against old duffers unable to see past neo-con ideology, you’ll be much happier.

  11. Adam March 10, 2014 at 8:14 pm |

    Oh Gina, it’s so easy to look at the monetary costs and ignore the human element isn’t it?

    You so easily speak of the dollar cost of labour in Australia thanks to Unionism and then tell us that we are “lucky” that we haven’t lost all our iron ore business to the African Continent… And your reason? Civil and political unrest.

    Oh, that’s right, rather convenient to overlook the fact that there’s never a free lunch when it suits you doesn’t it? Sense of entitlement you say?

    Hmmm seems like someone wants to throw a little Princess tantrum herself. Why, oh why can’t I have cheap labour AND a stable docile population to do my work for me?

    Swings and roundabouts my dear. Expensive due to pay rates, expensive due to socio political unrest.

    Awww pwincess not getting her own way? Poor thing!

    1. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 11:00 am |

      Adam: She is not ignoring the human element. You are. She realises the truth that Bert Kelly explained so well:

      Demonstrating a soft and sympathetic heart would be a good thing for my political image but poor people are more likely to be helped by those with hard heads than soft hearts. [Source.]

  12. Gordon March 10, 2014 at 8:24 pm |

    Too many mining projects at once caused the excess labour demand and the excessive labour prices in the mining industry – simple economics.

    How about this for a policy:
    Have some limits on the number of mining projects that can be worked at a time. First in, best dressed. The minerals won’t rot, so if we have to dig them up over the next 500yrs rather than 50, so be it. Labour rates then won’t cost so much today, and our great great grand kids will thank us for it.
    AND we won’t need the 457 VISA system either which is plagued with scams.

    Ditching the 457 VISA system, means that companies will actually have to train more locals.

    The other aspect of all this is that Australia has high wages, but we are low risk in terms of war or civil unrest – which is a considerable risks in some parts of the world.

    1. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 10:50 am |

      Gordon: Since when does Mrs Rinehart want to dig everything up now? She has medium and long term plans. Did you even read her article above that the comments here are meant to be commenting on?

      1. Gordon March 11, 2014 at 3:44 pm |

        Benjamin, you’ve failed to connect the dots…I sure did read the article, which suggests mining companies are looking at mining operations outside of Australia, due to the cost of doing business here, and the high labour costs are a huge part of the problem, hence my suggestion on government intervention that throttles the demand for labour.

        1. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 4:04 pm |

          Gordon: So you want to make it more difficult for Mrs Rinehart to create new jobs?

          1. Anne-Maree March 11, 2014 at 8:30 pm |

            If Australia is too expansive and everywhere else is so tempting why doesn’t she just leave? Because she thinks she can manipulate Australians and our government to increase her bottom line.

            1. Benjamin Marks March 12, 2014 at 11:20 am |

              Anne-Maree: If you don’t like Mrs Rinehart’s attempts to persuade everyone about the benefits of the free-market and its division of labour, capital accumulation and technological progress raising the living standards of all, then why should she leave rather than you? You are perfectly free to leave!

          2. Suze March 13, 2014 at 9:44 am |

            She doesn’t create new jobs, the market does.

            1. Benjamin Marks March 13, 2014 at 10:04 am |

              Suze: She is part of the market, unlike the government.

      2. Anne-Maree March 11, 2014 at 8:35 pm |

        Benjamin Marks, do you see yourself as an intellect? Because you ask the silliest of questions. Why do you make people spell everything out for you???

        1. Benjamin Marks March 12, 2014 at 11:20 am |

          Anne-Maree: When did I call myself an intellect?

    2. sandy west March 14, 2014 at 6:06 pm |

      Wrong, get it out now as the way technology is going no one will want it in 50 years !

  13. Anne-Maree March 10, 2014 at 8:25 pm |

    I absolutely love the heading she gave herself. Gina Rinehart, Australia’s richest intellect. Wow thanks for that information Gina. I have so much respect for you. Hey since you are the richest woman in the world and the government can’t afford to help the poor maybe you could just take over?

    1. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 10:45 am |

      Anne-Maree: She did not give that heading. I did. She has no control over this website. I have total control and take full responsibility for everything. And, yes, she is Australia’s richest intellect, because she is bringing all Australians together and trying to find a middle-ground, as is explained here. In contrast, most Australians can’t even see where the middle-ground is.

    2. sandy west March 14, 2014 at 6:08 pm |

      If She took over ? “JOY TO ALL IN AUSTRALIA”.

  14. marty March 11, 2014 at 6:08 am |

    The age of entitlement? Don’t have a mine so I wouldn’t know what that is about
    Interesting how conservatives have these utterly outdated stars to support their own utter lack of pragmatic intelligence and inability to think beyond the obvious. Here’s the deal Gina..why don’t you give all the people who are on the dole say…$600-$1000 a week plus entitlements to come and work in your mines…oh that’s right it’d hurt your bottom line so your $20 Billion might be say $18 Billion and we wouldn’t want that bottom line to shrink..so when you are bored with kicking the crap out of people who have nothing, maybe use that privileged intellect to actually think of an alternative rather than put nothing on the plate and try and give old Thatcher some CPR
    Here’s what Thatcher did to England..a little glimpse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ1MxfH-eqI

    1. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 11:03 am |

      Marty: Sorry, I can tell that you have read the misleading media reports about Mrs Rinehart’s article and the title of Mrs Rinehart’s article, but not that you have read further. Please let me know if you disagree with anything in her article. Thanks. I think you will be surprised and agree with it.

  15. lynne lahey March 11, 2014 at 4:30 pm |

    I worked for 48 years and now i am on the aged pension as there was no extra money to allow any savings, does Gina want me to stop taking any money from the government, does she want me to curl up and die so that the rich can get richer, i paid my taxes.

    1. Benjamin Marks March 11, 2014 at 4:39 pm |

      Lynne: Please read the article freely posted above that the comments here are meant to be commenting on and stop relying on misleading media stories about it. Here are two passages where welfare payments to those in need and other government spending is defended, and their continued funding is argued for:

      1. “Without enterprising people paying tax, governments had no money to provide — including what a country needed to do — pay for healthcare, police, defence, caring for senior citizens, roads and helping those truly unable to help themselves.”
      2. “Australians have to work hard or actually harder and smarter to create the revenue to be able to pay that bill. That’s in addition to things we have to have. The essentials like healthcare, defence, police, aged care, roads — the list rolls on — and still pay off our record debt.”

      There are people who oppose all government welfare, but Gina Rinehart has never been one of them. An example of someone who opposes all government welfare is John Singleton who says:

      No one has a right to welfare, because all welfare is paid for by other people. To admit such a right would, to that extent, turn those who pay it into slaves. [Source.]

      So direct your hate at him and Neville Kennard and other Workers Party veterans, not at Mrs Rinehart.

      You should realise that Mrs Rinehart is your friendly voice of moderation and deserves your support, not your criticism. She is on your side!

      1. Anne-Maree March 11, 2014 at 9:16 pm |

        What welfare does she oppose?

        1. Benjamin Marks March 12, 2014 at 11:26 am |

          Anne-Maree: It is not Mrs Rinehart that opposes welfare, but senior high-profile businessmen like John Singleton (as quote above) and Neville Kennard. Please turn your hate to them, not to Mrs Rinehart, who as I have said many times, is clearly your friendly voice of moderation.

      2. Mike March 26, 2014 at 5:44 pm |

        “Australians have to work hard or actually harder and smarter to create the revenue to be able to pay that bill. That’s in addition to things we have to have. The essentials like healthcare, defence, police, aged care, roads — the list rolls on — and still pay off our record debt.”

        — So, instead you would have them simply work cheaper!

        And, in order to scrounge up the missing dough, you say “cut the entitlements”

        So let’s get this straight:

        The People LOSE pay, and LOSE “entitlements”….. while your girlfriend Gina GAINS cheap labor and GAINS lowered employment costs, AND SHE DOESN’T EVEN MINE ANYTHING!

        Furthermore: You keep posing the “So you want the taxpayers to take the risk???” question as if it’s a silver-bullet argument…

        YES. YES! The risk-taker is the profit maker!

        This woman simply finds Australia’s politics to be pliable to her whims because of her financial clout (“biggest tax-payer” and all)

        Though, to anyone half awake that’s a bit of a canard; the PERCENTAGE of tax she pays per dollar of income is FAR BELOW the national average.

        This would make your statistic either: niave, ignorant, negligent, and/or disingenuous.

        Come back to us with a win/win solution instead of this LOSE+LOSE/WIN+WIN monstrosity your lovepartner lustily licks her luscious lips over.

        1. Benjamin Marks March 27, 2014 at 8:56 am |

          Mike: Mrs Rinehart’s projects are win-win. She attracts private risk capital. Taxpayers risk nothing. Taxpayers only share in the profits. And when you are getting taxpayers to take a risk, you are FORCING them to whether they want to or not!!! Also, the percentage of tax she pays is not below the national average if you take into account the amount of money she reinvests in her resource-unlocking job-creating projects. She does not take any jobs away. She only creates new jobs. She provides resources as efficiently as possible, which is what increases the quality of life for everyone. She is win-win. Although a good argument could be made that when she pays taxes, then the taxes distort the economy, distort the receiving of supply and demand signals, make it difficult for private competitors of government services, etc. So apart from being a massive taxpayer, her activities are win-win. As Murray Rothbard said:

          The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite of the “jungle” society. The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another, by seizure of the latter’s property. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another, though he may also retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the division of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of the “survival of the fittest” to both the jungle and the market is to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The “fit” in the jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The “fit” on the market are those most adept in the service of society. The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption. On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that cannot exist in the jungle. [Source.]

          1. Mike March 28, 2014 at 2:01 am |

            Give me a break.

            1. Her “projects” are not what I was referring to. It’s her rhetoric. Nice little sleight of hand though; I’m sure it dazzled a few drunks somewhere.

            2. You’re just plain old Trickle-Down, all the way. Ah, yes. We should alllll go stand in the rich-and-powerful’s golden streams! As if the rich somehow haven’t yet figured out how to hold on to their profits. Sup-POSEDLY the beauty of the free market is that everyone’s motivated by their own self interest, but whenever your argument is /Job Creation/, these… creatures… become radiantly angelic philanthropic altruists?! — NO. They want MORE work for LESS cost. Any day of the week. Pure. And. Simple.

            3. Cranes. You paint the rosy picture of hundreds of thousands of starving homeless bums, instantly transformed into GAINFULLY EMPLOYED WORKERS, busily chipping away at the mine’s walls with little rock hammers, industriously bucket-brigading little pebbles of coal up the hill — yet the reality is, Gina advocates for the lowering of wages on the promise of MAYBE employing a few more fat crane operators than before — FOR TWO DOLLARS A _DAY_.

            4. This risk you keep mentioning is a big fat red herring anyway. All things considered, there is NO RISK TO SPEAK OF when talking about mountains of solid eff-ing pure-premium Australian iron! Give that bit of magician’s patter a rest, please.

            5. You say “Taxpayers only share in the profits.” — AND THE PAY CUTS, and the loss of their _DIVIDENDS_ (not “ENTITLEMENTS” as you love to put it.)

            6. How… innocent… of you to discount the disparate political clout she wields by way of her tax contributions.

            7. How contradictory of you to inconceivably claim that the quality of life for Australians would be increased by working for only TWO DOLLARS A DAY WITHOUT

            8. Quantities are increased. Qualities are improved.


            HERE is the cold truth, Benjamin, and you need to figure it out before Gina lowers YOUR salary too:

            …Who, in all of Australia, with all the other higher paying jobs to choose from, would EVER accept a job, mining SOLID IRON, for TWO DOLLARS A DAY?

            That’s right. No-one in their right mind.

            So, what ALWAYS comes next out of the Tycoon’s mouth?

            “Temporary migrant workers.”

            …And… guess… who gets… the tax revenues!

            — and don’t even TRY to tell me The People get an efficient return on that little “redistribution” — because It’s all spent on the elite politicos’ hobknob sessions, or pork-barreled back into overpriced nepotist government contractors!

            Anyway; Save yourself before you are crushed by Gina’s gargantuan juggernaut of gluttonous greed!

            1. Brian Carr March 28, 2014 at 6:52 am |

              Well said Mike, you nailed it.

            2. Benjamin Marks March 28, 2014 at 8:59 am |

              Mike: I’ll just respond to five of your errors for now from your comment above, which is your latest piece of wisdom in your crusade to have billions of dollars of taxpayers money risked on mining projects so that the evil Mrs Rinehart and the evil foreign multinational companies do not risk their own money in Australia:
              (a.) If anyone wants to employ anyone for so low a wage that they won’t work for them, then they will have to increase the wage offer. And Mrs Rinehart pays way more than the minimum wage to her workers, because she values them so highly, not because she is forced to by law. In fact, when the law sets a minimum wage rate, that actually HURTS the poor more than the wealthy, as is made clear in this short fun video.
              (b.) Mrs Rinehart never said she wanted to pay workers $2 a day. She said she had to compete with companies overseas who do, so given this fact she asked that the government not throw more taxes in her way making it even harder for her to compete.
              (c.) I have never received any money from Mrs Rinehart, her agents, her company or even her industry. This is a genuine grass-roots fan-site.
              (d.) If there is no risk as you claim, then why don’t you go to the banks and get it done yourself? There is huge risk. Many people seem to be predicting that the iron ore price will decrease so much as to mean that Mrs Rinehart’s project is still very far from certain.
              (e.) Does your point #6 claim that because Mrs Rinehart pays so much tax she has unfair influence?

            3. Mike March 28, 2014 at 12:44 pm |

              “Does your point #6 claim that because Mrs Rinehart pays so much tax she has unfair influence?”

              Gina who?

  16. Suze March 13, 2014 at 4:44 am |

    It’s annoying when the ALP’s handling of the global economic crisis is completely ignored in discussion of Australia’s economic performance, considering the accolades received from many nations, regarding Australia’s exemplary economic managment during the crisis. Our leaders knew how to navigate the crisis admirably, and afford Australia relative isolation from major impacts. As such, these questions posed (below) are pointless, very out-dated.

    [Australia likewise has a lot to learn from Europe and our European migrants. Why did they come here? Why did they pick Australia? And how did many of their countries end up in such a mess? We must learn how big overspending governments, and giant consequent debts, started to dampen or control their future — and most importantly, how we can avoid the same fate.]

    1. Suze March 13, 2014 at 5:15 am |

      News clip regarding Australia and the GEC…

      Professor Stiglitz, a former World Bank chief economist and economic adviser to the US government, said federal Labor did a fantastic job of saving Australia from the global economic crisis.

      At the same time Professor Stiglitz criticised right-wing politicians for being the “architects” of the downturn.

      Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/labor-saved-australia-nobel-laureate-stiglitz-20100806-11lkq.html#ixzz2vm1LB4xq

      1. Benjamin Marks March 13, 2014 at 10:09 am |

        Suze: Nobel Laureates disagree with each other. For example, Hayek disagrees totally with Stiglitz. Hayek’s colleague and student, Lew Rockwell, summarised their opposition to Stiglitz well:

        To the extent that the new [government] spending causes a spending response from investors and consumers, this is more evidence of an uneconomic use of scarce resources. If the money is used to prop up failing companies, that’s particularly bad since it is an attempt to override market realities, an attempt that is about as successful as trying to repeal gravity by throwing things up in the air. [Source.]

        1. Suze March 14, 2014 at 3:46 am |

          Fact is, it worked. So Hayek falls on deaf ears.

          1. Benjamin Marks March 14, 2014 at 10:52 am |

            Suze: Bipartisanly respected Australian politician Bert Kelly showed the ridiculousness of Stiglitz’s position with this question:

            Last week the Treasurer told us about his policy of using deficit financing to lower the present level of unemployment. How is this solution of burying the unemployment problem under a mountain of money actually working out? If printing money is a good solution for the unemployment problem, why not print more of the stuff and get rid of the unemployment problem altogether? [Source.]

            And here is Professor HHH:

            Explain to me how increase in paper pieces can possibly make a society richer? If that were the case, explain to me why there is still poverty in the world? Isn’t every central bank in the world capable of printing as much paper as they want? And do you then think society as a whole would be richer? [Source.]

      2. Gordon March 13, 2014 at 4:02 pm |

        Hmmm…Did Professor Stiglitz’s advice also destroy the US economy and give them their historically mega-high levels of debt? It is no wonder that he thinks Australia’s high debt is fantastic too. Maybe he is actually working against the countries he advises. Economic policy can destroy as well as build nations…and high long term debt is NEVER a good thing. Thanks Rudd and Co, you pack of inept morons.

        1. Suze March 14, 2014 at 3:48 am |

          Stiglitz wasn’t the lone ranger in complimenting Australia on it’s economic management.

  17. Suze March 13, 2014 at 5:05 am |

    You tell a good story, like your Dad. You know our iron ore is the purest grade; investment didn’t go off-shore, because our product is superior. I suspect you’re too submissive with business partners? Don’t grovel to compete with a cheap foreign enterprise. Sit on the resource until the foreign supply is depleted.

    [Can you imagine where Australia would be if instead of the Pilbara, all Rio Tinto Iron Ore investments since the early 1990s had gone offshore to low-cost Orissa, or low-cost Africa? Both have massive resources of high grade, direct ship, iron ore. We’ve been very fortunate this didn’t occur, not from great leadership, but simply because of problems in Orissa and to date, Africa.]

    1. Benjamin Marks March 13, 2014 at 10:43 am |

      Suze: Are you saying that Mrs Rinehart should negotiate harder and be more even more stubborn!? She is usually criticised for the opposite reasons.

      1. Suze March 13, 2014 at 8:21 pm |

        Yes, Ben – in relation to iron-ore especially, because Gina has control over marketing the world’s purest iron-ore deposit. Gina should never entertain insulting offers by those comparing apples and oranges (such as Rio Tinto threatening to go offshore, re Orrissa, and Africa). A threat that could be debunked as uneconomical in the long haul, but, they obviously had Gina worried enough to co-operate…

        I’ve not read of Gina being a tough negotiator relative to mining deals Ben?

        1. Benjamin Marks March 14, 2014 at 10:55 am |

          Suze: If only Mrs Rinehart had an expert negotiator like you.

  18. Suze March 13, 2014 at 5:36 am |

    You’re misinformed Gina. It’s the Lefties that have promoted Renewable Energies and Technologies, having clearly acknowleded peak-oil, and the unsustainability of the fossil-fuel mining industry. The Lefties have already addressed many issues, to avoid living beyond our means in the future. Renewable energy is the core concept to reduce costs. Which of course clashes with your coal interests. Hence, some tension there.

    [Put simply, we are not earning enough revenue for all we are spending. We are living beyond our means. But dare say that and you are condemned. The left don’t want to address the issue. Instead they get hysterical and personal about who speaks out — in this case, sometimes me. ]

    1. Benjamin Marks March 13, 2014 at 10:17 am |

      Suze: It is miners like Mrs Rinehart who continue to discover resources after everyone thinks there is none to find. For example, her father Lang Hancock discovered enough iron ore in the Pilbara for the whole world for thousands of years, yet the Australian government had a ban on exporting it because they thought Australia was about to run out of iron ore even for its own use!!!

      1. Suze March 13, 2014 at 9:49 pm |

        I feel your reply suggests an irresponsible ethic Ben, content with unlimited consumption of finite resources, on the hope more will be found? Does this ethic have a Plan B, if more resources are not found?

        I understand romanticising family history, but the government geological record shows the iron-ore deposits in the Pilbara were known long before her parents saw them. But no-one was interested in iron-ore in the late 1800’s while the Pilbara and other areas in WA were yielding so much Gold.

        1. Benjamin Marks March 14, 2014 at 10:59 am |

          Suze: The government was so concerned that Australia was running out of iron ore for its own domestic needs that it banned the export of iron ore until the 1960s! As for the world running out of iron ore, thanks to Mrs Rinehart, her father and other pioneers who disregard the official consensus, you will never need to worry about that.

  19. Suze March 13, 2014 at 8:50 am |

    Total Government Debt is $513,820,087,744, or $21,950 per person.
    Total Private Debt is $2,228,777,742,489, or $95,205 per person.

    The Government should not rely on mining and mining related industries for revenue, because miners can stage a rebellion, fail to pay taxes and consequently – the budget is unexpectedly stuffed.

    Your stunt, with Forrest and Murdoch, for example, cost Australians more in interest repayments, as the government couldn’t afford to maintain services and reduce the debt, as planned.

    In amongst that Government debt figure above, is an amount borrowed to pay for the discount on diesal fuel for all mining operators. All your expenses incurred in your operations are deducted from your taxable income. You expect the government to share infrastructure costs of road, rail and port facilities to transport ore. And you refuse to pay to offset the carbon pollution of your operations – unlike other operations around the world. You have been given an exclusive priveledge by lease, to extract raw materials, and you will be charged an amount for that priveledge. You lash out at the Lefty Greens because they oppose destruction of the natural environment and sacred sites, creating an approvals process you find irritating.

    Frankly Gina, you have nothing to complain about. If you don’t want to contribute to Australia’s prosperity as a community, the lease can be given to another miner who will.

    [While Governments count on mining and mining related industries being prosperous, it’s important that all of this is understood in the context of the need to cut the burdens of wasteful government spending, taxes, regulations and approvals — and not just talk about it.]

    1. Benjamin Marks March 13, 2014 at 10:51 am |

      Suze: Mrs Rinehart has never objected to the feudalistic system of royalty payments to the Crown that she lives under. As for government sharing the infrastructure costs: the infrastructure for Roy Hill, her largest project, is privately funded. And as for earlier projects her family was involved in, here’s Lang Hancock in 1977 with the truth:

      Let’s look at the Pilbara where over $2,000 million of private risk capital has been invested. This private money has built the schools, the hospitals, the gaols, the customs houses, the railways, the ports and towns and developed the world’s largest iron mines. In fact, for every man employed, $230,000 of private money has been spent on infrastructure which in capital cities is provided by the taxpayer.

      Far from “Australian taxpayers digging deep into their pockets”, the government takes nearly half of all company profits, plus 66.67% of dividends plus royalty, plus income tax on all employees, plus direct and indirect tax of sub-contracting companies, plus import duties on materials, etc. and provides nothing in return except an ever increasing mountain of bureaucratic strangulation. [Source.]

  20. Jodie Clarkson March 13, 2014 at 2:39 pm |

    Let’s stop attacking the people and their ideas, let’s attack the problem!
    We need to sort out our expenditure…and soon

    1. Suze March 14, 2014 at 4:36 am |

      Here’s the problem. The solution to expenditure had been worked out. Gina just didn’t want to lose a cent…

      AUSTRALIA’S richest woman, Gina Rinehart, shouted herself hoarse on the back of a flat-bed truck yesterday in an extraordinary display of emotion from the reclusive iron ore magnate.

      For someone who vehemently guards her privacy, the daughter of iron ore legend Lang Hancock seemed to be swept up in the moment in front of about 2000 protesters, who had gathered in Perth’s Langley Park to vent their spleen at Kevin Rudd’s planned resource super-profits tax. Wearing a string of pearls and bellowing “Axe the tax! Axe the tax!”, Ms Rinehart urged the crowd to yell the slogan louder, her voice cracking.


      1. Benjamin Marks March 14, 2014 at 11:01 am |

        Suze: The solution to raising more revenue is not to put taxes and other obstacles in the way of risking huge amounts of money on mining projects.

  21. Suze March 14, 2014 at 3:43 am |

    The comment was in reference to the mining industry, not just Hancock projects.

    Boasting about construction of facilities and infrastructure needed to operate isn’t generally impressive, as all business owners must invest their capital to set-up. Hancock has great facilities, but this only impresses the workers, not the general public.

  22. Suze March 14, 2014 at 4:01 am |

    Comparing conditions of competing suppliers might entice you to compete with them, when you can’t, unless you have the same conditions as they do. But, this is what Gina is trying to do – reduce Australian condtions to those of lesser standards – and of course she’s hitting a brick-wall.

    [Our competitor nations with their lower tax, lower cost base and in some, less regulations and approval burdens, add serious pressure and risk to our future]

    1. Suze March 14, 2014 at 4:17 am |

      I recommend reading this report to avoid being caught with stranded coal assets as China progresses her Renewable Energy and Technology projects rapidly, changing demand for coal.

      China is committed to reducing Pollution and specifically Carbon Emissions. When China says Carbon-Trading is on the agenda – Australian Miners should not argue on whether the science is correct. Hancock and other companies could find themselves isolated from the market, if they choose not to comply with Carbon Emission Reduction measures.


      1. Benjamin Marks March 14, 2014 at 11:06 am |

        Suze: Before you were saying that Mrs Rinehart should have negotiated harder on her iron ore deals. Now you are saying she should “avoid being caught with stranded coal assets”. If only you were in charge of her investments! You know so much! You obviously admire Mrs Rinehart very much to be so tirelessly offering her advice on so many different areas to protect her self-interest and increase her wealth.

  23. Brian Carr March 14, 2014 at 5:31 pm |

    Interesting –

    “Australian coal producers – in particular the billionaire miners Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer, – face another major roadblock to their dreams of digging up the Galilee Basin and other coal-rich resources: The likely new prime minister of India is not a big fan of coal.

    Some observers suggest Modi will effectively abandon most new coal projects and turn instead to solar, potentially increasing the government’s already ambition solar targt 10-fold. Vineet Mittal, managing director of Welspun Energy, a major Indian power producer and solar developer, told Bloomberg. “I wouldn’t be surprised if he came out with a 200,000-megawatt target by 2025.”

    I think the groundswell has started, Pity Gina didn’t put her abundant resources into developing renewable energy resources, especially seeing as she doesn’t even own a mine.

    1. Benjamin Marks March 15, 2014 at 4:02 pm |

      Brian: If only you and Suze were Mrs Rinehart’s investment advisers. You clearly know more than she does, and have a much better investment success rate.

      1. Brian Carr March 15, 2014 at 5:06 pm |

        Yes, it’s a pity that, isn’t it ? If I was, I’d advise her to cut her losses with coal, it’s on the nose globally, already caused enough problems, leave it in the ground where it belongs.

        1. Benjamin Marks March 15, 2014 at 5:19 pm |

          Brian: What “losses” in coal does she have to cut?

          1. Brian Carr March 15, 2014 at 6:25 pm |

            Gallilee Basin ? isn’t that why the reef is being dredged and Abbot Point terminal expanded ? and wasn’t that project supposedly being funded by the Indian family/corporation…the ones who had the wedding our government nitwits attended, the ones who are a bit strapped for cash due to falling coal prices, and the ones who hope like hell the odds on favourite doesn’t win power in the impending Indian election ? 🙂

  24. Max Warren March 18, 2014 at 9:58 pm |

    I don’t think there is an element of entitlement to welfare in the community.

    1. Benjamin Marks March 19, 2014 at 9:25 am |

      Mr Warren: I am unsure what you are arguing I’m sorry. Are you saying that those who receive government handouts do not feel entitled to them?

  25. LEONE BECK April 3, 2014 at 4:06 pm |

    No One is Entitled to Handouts BUT if They are Born here in Australia well then they are born into Bondage. This is a fact every Australian is traded like a commodity like a stock exchange. each head has a worth upon it like a stock like cattle. some of them have worked hard and destroyed their person doing so and should be well compensated for this the others who just leach from the system should get NOTHING. NO person who has not sweated under the sun or under the ground or put thousands of hours into helping make our country what it is todays should be living without reward. and all the Migrants that simply swim in here in their leaking false pretentions boats should be sunk at sea. They feel they are entitled to big compensation and they are flooding the place and now they all gang together and buy out Australian wealth with the very welfare money Australian Taxpayers LET them live from “As Gina Rinehart’s Wealth is an Asset Of All Australians So is The Wealth Of these new age Migrants and one way or another it will be returned. at this point in time the only thing Stupid Australians Get from Gina Rinehart is Employment but that employment WILL dry up and then what will you have a big donut shaped country with a big hole in the middle. AUSTRALIA FULL OF DUMB PEOPLE THAT LET RICH PEOPLE LIKE GINA RINEHART TAKE THEIR WEALTH . YOUR COUNTRY IS YOUR WEALTH AND YOU ARE JUST GIVING IT AWAY. BECAIUSE A FEW SCAB MINERS ARE SCARED OF LOSING THEIR JOBS.

  26. […] heiresses with extraordinary political influence such as Gina Rinehart decide to lecture us. In an opinion article she wrote recently entitled “The age of entitlement-has consequences” she outlined her distaste […]

  27. […] saying you give money to charity, pay taxes in Australia or employ Australians. A few brave souls, including Gina, try to fight tall poppy syndrome by giving their critics an economics lesson or two, pointing out […]

  28. Michael Norris November 28, 2014 at 10:44 am |

    Kindly ask Gina to contact me regarding a non-political, sensitive and confidential matter which I am seeking to discuss with Gina.
    With thanks.
    Michael Norris.

    1. Benjamin Marks November 28, 2014 at 11:27 am |

      Michael: This is not Gina’s personal site. This is just a genuine grassroots info site. We are not funded by Gina, her companies, her agents or even her industry. We are 100% independent.

    2. rayna April 20, 2015 at 7:15 pm |

      Hi Michael,

      If you want to talk to “Gina” try contact her through her ANDEV project. If you are legitimate Imants might put you in contact. http://www.andev-project.org and fill in the subscribe to members list, something else will happen, you’ll learn first hand what she is up to and what she wishes for this country and her business.


  29. Catherine Lawson January 1, 2016 at 12:12 am |

    She is no patriot. In fact she hates Australia and all Australians. She is a recipient of one of the biggest welfare scams in the history of Australia. She takes tax payer money and then threatens to bring in foreign worker at $2 a day. I call her a psychopath.

    1. Benjamin Marks January 5, 2016 at 6:16 pm |

      Catherine, you are mistaken on each count. Mrs Rinehart is Australia’s biggest taxpayer. She is not subsidised by Australian taxpayers in any way. Yes, her business expenses are deducted from her taxable income. And yes, mining vehicles that use privately-maintained roads get the fuel excise they pay returned, as it is meant to only be payable by vehicles using publicly-maintained roads. But that surely can’t be what you’re talking about. Lastly, she never threatened to bring in foreign workers at $2 a day. Please provide evidence that she did so. Thanks.

  30. Andrew January 6, 2016 at 9:54 am |

    The issue we have today is that so many have fallen into the culture of, “I shall have 5 children and go into public housing” where they live out their existence at the burden of the families who have 2 children, save like buggery to pay off a home then die like a sacrificial anode for those that sat around on the couch every day watching television drinking all their lives.

    Government has laid down the legislation for non taxpayers to take the easy path at the severe cost to those that hold down jobs. Government has laid down the legislation that has underpinned those that don’t save money in a vote getting exercise.

    Government has laid down the legislation that has lead to the systemic generational culture of have babies and be supported by those working 6 and 7 days a week to underpin the system.

    Government has poisoned the well with cash which has lead to the alcoholism today. Many of our forefathers saw opening a King Brown as a luxury but today people squander their taxpayer funded welfare in anticipation of the next,

    Only a cashless welfare system where people must use money for its intended use will our Australian children not starve for an excuse that it is everyone else’s fault. Government has built this system not for the greater good of the Australian people.

    Australia is broken, and it will go broke laden with watermelon debt. Australia should be wealthy, not laden with public debt. People come this country for what we are losing.
    A country that rewards work, not those who sit home and pay no tax.



Leave a Reply

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.