Setanta wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 3:55pm:

Yea I heard that on the radio this morning too, the bloke speaking was apparently from the family that gifted the land to the RFS in the first place. He said they had a  vote at the Bentley  RFS and they all voted no but were over ruled by head office.

Grendel wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 5:01pm:

Australian resources for Australians first.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:42pm:


Tell that to the USA.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:54am:


No, I am saying that protectionist views of the world - which is what you are suggesting with this - is a very dangerous game to play if you don't have a decent hand of cards.

Think of it this way - the global trading market is made up of three major global spheres -

NAFTA - The USA, Canada and Mexico
The European Union
Asia Pacific - More loose but made up of the tiger economies backed up somewhat by the more regional powers of China and Japan.

Global trade is set on policy by a kind of "You mess with me, you mess with my whole family" kind of thing.

The EU can be protectionist in nature of somethings - eg bananas which it imports first from the West Indies due to the old colonies of Spain, France and the UK. The US doesn't like it but it can't get into a trade war with the size of the EU.

Now Australia sits in none of these. It is a tiny country on its own. It has a couple of decent cards in its natural resources but it isn't in a cartel, it isnt in a trading bloc so its vulnerable massively to retaliation trade protections.

Why do you think Saudi, Kuwait, Oman, UAE form the OPEC cartel on the oil policy?
For the exact reason I point out - you can't set protectionist agendas on your own.

There are 2 countries in the world in my opinion which can strike it alone and are big enough to call the shots - the United States and China.
The two largest markets in the world. They can because everyone else needs them.

Australia would be belted from pillar to post if it tried to hinder the free market and place bans on export - particularly over an issue such as energy.

If you want to play in the global market, you have to accept its conditions.

Grendel wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 8:26pm:


You don't - as a little country on its own - pick and choose when to enter the global market.
You want be domestic only? See how far it gets you.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 8:59pm:

I wouldn't sell us short Andrei.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia

We were a much littler country before and much better off when we rode on the sheep's back. 
For a century, the wool industry gave Australia one of the highest living standards in the world. The economy rode high on wealth from primary exports.
In the late 19th century, Australia's economic strength relative to the rest of the world was reflected in its GDP. In 1870, Australia had the highest GDP per capita in the world due to economic growth fuelled by its natural resources.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:13pm:

Why was it I thought you were Australian?
We trade globally Andrei.
We have free trade agreements.
People want our resources and products.
Utilising these for our use is not being protectionist, just sensible.
The Canadians do not like NAFTA and would get out of it if they could without damage, it is largely to the US's advantage, not Mexico's and Canada's.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 8:11am:


Fine, if you think that we can still tax the exports more and not tax local consumers, use the increased tax on exports to make up the difference. More than one way to skin a cat.