mining
29 Sep 2011
Gina The Lion Heart
Australia's richest person has a vision of a northern libertarian paradise where the taxes are low and the workers are foreign. Adam Brereton looks closer at Gina Rinehart's brave new world
Gina Rinehart, Australia’s richest person — tipped to reach the position of World #1 — has penned a curious and revealing op-ed for the latest edition of Australian Resources and Investment magazine. In it, she expands on a vision that has long represented her Shangri La: a northern Australian free-trade zone, unencumbered by taxation and populated by plentiful temporary labour from overseas.
Rinehart’s editorial and, by extension, her desire for a northern libertarian paradise, is motivated by opposition to the Labor government’s proposed carbon and mining taxes, which demonstrate, Rinehart says, a "fundamental lack of understanding of how the resource and mining sector operates". It’s curious for the reason that, like Rinehart’s previous writing on the topic, it’s almost devoid of statistics or evidence of any kind.
There are two main thrusts to her arguments in favour of the free-trade zone.
First, new taxes from the federal Labor government are killing investment in mining, forcing companies offshore and slowing the breakneck pace of the boom — you’ve heard this all before, and the enormous profits posted by companies like Rio Tinto, XStrata and Rinehart’s own company, Hancock Prospecting, should be enough to wipe the tears from your eyes at the plight of our struggling mining executives.
Rinehart’s second point is more bizarre and is a stalking horse for her real desires, if not those of the industry at large. Australians don’t want to live in sweltering Northern Australia where all the goodies are buried, so we need to regulate them less, tax them less and cut payroll and company tax, stamp duty and the like to make it more economically attractive to relocate. Failing that, we should "…consider the terrible plight of very poor people in our neighbouring countries in Asia. We should, on humanitarian grounds, give more of these people the opportunity of guest labour work in Australia."
We might also be able to provide adequate services for the disabled, elderly and war veterans, Rinehart says, if we were permitted to bring in Asian guest workers.
If you can move past the mindbogglingly shameless rent-seeking of a woman tipped to soon be personally worth $100 billion, whose philanthropic efforts have mainly taken place offshore (with the exception of naming a school hall after her mother, obviously), there are a couple of big holes here.
Financial incentives to work in mines are already ridiculous. The average wage in mining is $149,000 and tradies can usually earn more. Pay incentives are offered for workers who stick around for a year or longer in many cases. Expenses are frequently paid, and the notorious variations on FIFO (fly in fly out) mean workers don’t have to live on site permanently.
Yet there is still a shortage of semi-skilled labour in the mining sector. Turns out people have other reasons aside from economic ones for choosing where they live. The FIFO lifestyle not only impedes take-up of jobs in the sense that shift-work and camp living precludes family and community engagement, but it wrecks nearby rural communities that are quickly becoming mining-company vassals.
Anecdotally this is common knowledge, but one academic report published in the British Journal of Criminology on the topic of FIFO violence paints a more thorough picture: acute housing shortages, endemic alcohol-fueled violence and resentment of FIFO workers by locals is the rule, rather than the exception.
So when Rinehart talks about mining companies supporting communities and proposes a free-trade zone to incentivise growth, we should keep in mind that the huge financial incentives for young men to work in the mines are the cause of many mining communities’ woes, in turn making it less attractive for others to move up north.
All the chest-beating about community development, economic incentives for Australians and the like is just wrapping for Rinehart’s real desire: to bypass all the costs associated with luring Australians to the NT, or training locals, and the direct and indirect costs mining has to bear from FIFO, by importing massive quantities of semi-skilled (read: unskilled) guest workers. After all, guest workers eliminate the need for the ‘fly-out’ part; just fly them into the camps and leave them there until the ore’s dug up. Plus, you don’t have to pay them $200,000 to weld for you.
I’ve written previously about the new Enterprise Migration Scheme tailored to do just this, and the lack of scrutiny over its ethical implications. But Rinehart’s comparison of choice — Singapore — is another good case study for why guest workers will always be exploited to fuel economic booms. In Singapore, writes Peter Mares in Inside Story, "unskilled temporary migrant workers do not have the right to marry, or cohabit with a Singapore citizen or permanent resident. Female non-resident workers have to undergo mandatory pregnancy tests every six months, with the threat of immediate deportation in the case of a positive test result". Truly, as Gina says, "attitudes need to change before we can achieve Singapore’s fortunate and compelling position".
In the trade-off between individual rights and economic gains, Mares says, "migrant workers may be willing to do so to an extent that is likely to be considered unacceptable". Like, for instance, living in mining camps in the NT, receiving a ‘humanitarian’ wage from Rinehart and co.
Spurious proposals for a Northern Australian free-trade zone have everything to do with labour, little to do with incentivising exploration and nothing to do with community building. If it weren’t being pushed in mining-owned publications and the SMH’s opinion pages, where Rinehart has a $50 million stake, there’s a good chance we wouldn’t be hearing about it at all.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Posted Thursday, 29 September 11 at 10:55AM
I long for the day when I see her personally hauling huge chunks of bauxite over a 12 hour shift.
Posted Thursday, 29 September 11 at 11:12AM
So her vision of Australia is fewer taxes and more slaves?
She doesn’t seem like a terribly nice person
Posted Thursday, 29 September 11 at 11:29AM
Any labour shortages in the North are totally the fault of incompetent National Leadership.
What’s the name of the Task Force PM Gillard has created, that can direct resources such as education and training, to utilising dormant capacities in the bloated cities for use in the North?
That’s right.
It doesn’t exist.
A failure of leadership you cannot spin.
What’s THE phone number, website, the Rineharts of the world have setup to ensure no shortages exist?
That’s right.
It doesn’t exist.
Another failure of leadership.
Posted Thursday, 29 September 11 at 12:18PM
No wonder she is paying for Bolts report or misinformation report. Its funny how right wing lunatics attract each other, Rhinehart, Murdoch and Bolt - all apart of the Chanell 10 family.
Posted Thursday, 29 September 11 at 2:56PM
Example the towns of Newman, Port Hedland, Onslow, Tom Price where FIFO people draw on the local habitat resources and contribute no social benefits. The Hancock interests cost accountants, like all the other mining enterprises just love the easy money method of FIFO. Total disregard for the human condition and the future of centres near mines. Young Australians today are under educated and under employed due to the imbalance in the economy over the last 30 years caused by the dreams of mining magnates and their management groups.All exhibited by you know who, being a leader against fair taxation and social investment in the future development of Australia.
Posted Thursday, 29 September 11 at 3:10PM
I have said before and will again - this is the sort of situation that the tall poppy syndrome was created to address. Back in the day we would have laughed in Rinehart’s face because she is clearly a self-interested, rich twerp.
Why any credence is being given this detestable fat cat’s musings on the proper way to run a society is beyond me. Any educated media person, even a lickspittle like Andrew Bolt, should be able to see the barely contained greed at the heart of these ‘ideas’ and reject them on that basis alone.
Frank, everything bad that has ever happened is due to a lack of national leadership. Cyclone Yasi was sent by Jesus because Gillard failed to implement a mining resources tax. My own dog was hit buy a car because we are in deficit.
Posted Thursday, 29 September 11 at 4:33PM
Warwick Rowell
The really terrifying thing about this is that we seem to be on a single track to that result anyway, through a huge increase in demand for labour that we can not meet with Australian workers. And then there is the overarching moral question: Are we contributing to the destruction of the biosphere through assisting in bringing the billions in China, India to our consumerist living standards? While making Twiggy and Gina even wealthier? They have no interest in addressing this fundamental moral issue.
Lang was a good bloke - he and my Dad knew each other well.
Posted Thursday, 29 September 11 at 8:42PM
Is this the same Gina Rinehart that supports financially a certain Andrew Bolt - who has a real problem about immigration into Australia?
**************************************************
Save the earth, it’s the only planet with Chocolate.
Posted Thursday, 29 September 11 at 8:52PM
Outrider
When I was in Perth recently I heard that the reason why it is hard to get workers up north on the mines is the strict drug testing regimes.
Anybody know or heard anything?
Posted Friday, 30 September 11 at 1:47AM
Quote from the ANDEV website where’s Rinehart’s article appears:
‘The mafia constructed Las Vegas because of 2 things. Guts and Determination. Whatever happened to guts and determination in Australia? Why can’t we do it?’
I think it’s more like greed and utter contempt for the environment that drive Vegas and the Australian resource boom.
Utter nonsense on the ANDEV site. Good thing we’ve got NM.
Posted Friday, 30 September 11 at 9:31AM
These libertarian capitalists equate freedom with their property ownership, and especially the right to control the earth to the exclusion of others.
It is apparently increasingly common among the landlords of the mining industry as the this article, and the following shows:
http://exiledonline.com/how-an-australian-oligarch-is-using-dirty-tricks…
Fortunately there is a different sort of libertarianism as well.
http://isocracy.org
http://www.facebook.com/groups/136650247831/
Posted Friday, 30 September 11 at 3:12PM
Well, that’s what you get when you let individuals ‘own’ nature’s products and do not charge for the privilege - so that the whole community may benefit.
Posted Friday, 30 September 11 at 4:46PM
Perhaps Rinehart should consider Africa instead.
Now that Africa has learned exactly what the benefits of socialism really are they might remove their socialist politicians from power and seek alternatives.
Now that socialist Africa has taxed, regulated and controlled their industries to the point that all but a few African socialist politicians are able to survive economically, perhaps now it will be Africa, and not Australia, which is ready to attract the investment capital and the entrepreneurs which are able to lift Africa out of the hands of socialism, the IMF and the grinding poverty which accompanies central planning and unchallenged socialism.
Posted Saturday, 01 October 11 at 8:43AM
Lev
Isocracy seems like a philosophy for libertarians who like to see lots of people getting shot? Very Zimbabwe!
Public ownership of natural resources is an interesting concept that seems to perpetuate the idea that our miners and farmers simply find valuable commodities lying around and sell them. I don’t recall isocracists, leftist libertarians or lefties generally getting quite so passionate about owning our natural resources when exploration licenses are being offered up. Nor do I recall seeing too many working the “easy life” as a farmer.
Personally I would rather live with the Gina Rineharts then have to worry about when “the people” are going to come on to my property to enforce their rights to “equality”. I didnt notice Gina suggesting that people should be conscripted to go work in her NT paradise so I will probably just pass the opportunity up. PR
Posted Saturday, 01 October 11 at 11:31AM
Perfidious,
I have no idea how you make the comparison with Zimbabwe.
Regarding public ownership of natural resources, there is no suggestion at all that miners and farmers etc, “simply find valuable commodities”. That is a misrepresentation of the position and cannot be taken seriously. It is basic economics to differentiate between unimproved value and improved value of natural resources. Exploration, extracting and farming constitutes additions to unimproved value.
For an easy introduction to the subject I would recommend some of the accessible essays by Dan Sullivan.
Are You A Real Libertarian or A Royal Libertarian?
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
Geoism and Libertarianism
http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm
Geoanarchism
http://www.anti-state.com/geo/foldvary1.html
Hope this helps,
Lev Lafayette http://isocracy.org
Posted Saturday, 01 October 11 at 2:20PM
I will take a look. Thanks.
To be clear - the “lying around” comment was metaphoric/tongue in cheek!
Posted Saturday, 01 October 11 at 3:46PM
Well said Dr Dog.
I have this awful vision of Rinehart dressed in leather, flogger in one hand, dog leash in the other hand - said leash attached to a sitting Bolt’s leather collar - Bolt - ball gagged - all quiet now. I need brain bleach NOW!
Posted Sunday, 02 October 11 at 10:08PM
Damn you Marcaspa… You had to share that thought, didn’t you? :p
Posted Sunday, 02 October 11 at 11:28PM
Lev
Seems to be an assumption in this material that those who own property come into an improbable amount of good luck?
If you are proposing a system whereby those who own land and benefit from government intervention (eg infrastructure build) pay a tax on the value creation and those who lose out from government intervention (dopey govt restriction/tax) then probably not too man libertarians would philosophically disagree with you.
Unfortunately this may not work out too well for “the people” since Governments are more inclined to reduce property values through dopeyness then to increase them through infrastructure development.
Not sure I can retract any of my original comments though. Fundamentally this seems like a system for those who want to give themselves the most flexibility to justify shooting people to steal their land off them.
Sorry PR
Posted Monday, 03 October 11 at 9:46AM
Hi PR,
“Luck” has very little to do with it. It is simply monopolistic behaviour. We know that natural resources (economic “land”) is fixed in supply and exists prior to human intervention in the productive process. The proposed system is to shift the tax burden off productive active and onto resource use. Which of course, encourages productive activity and discourages resource use.
You still seem to think that this use to justify “shooting people”. Yet where it is implemented (in part) of course, such a system has avoided quite successfully land reform “by the bullet”. Or, as General MacArthur put it (when framing Japan’s constitution which also implements a high level of such a policy): “No nation can avoid land reform. All it can do is determine the course it will take: bloody revolution or taxation”.
A comparison of say, Botswana, which does use this method, to its neighbours (e.g. Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mozambique, Angola, Malawi) indicates a very high degree of economic success and stability. Keep in mind that at independence Botswana was the poorest country in the region and is now the richest, has the highest level of literacy, the most stable political institutions, and the best distribution of income.
See: http://www.theiu.org/tsb/TheSilverBullet.pdf
Regards, Lev
Posted Monday, 03 October 11 at 10:55PM
Lev
Your mentioning of countries such as Zimbabwe highlights the very problem with giving the economic benefits of land to Govt. Govts have a tendency towards inefficiency, incompetence and corruption. Would you really want to be maximising the rewards available to a Robert Mugabe to pillage and plunder as he sees fit?
There also remains the issue that land does not lead to automatic rewards. For instance, going back in time, the value of a farm can be largely attributed to the work done in clearing the land and not necessarily the land itself.
In the context of minerals (which in Australia vest in the State) we have the situation where residual ownership of mineral rights by Government has lead to the stand off between Coal Seam Gas and Farmers. A private owner of land (in this case the farmer) has a vested interest in ensuring the long term viability of his property. A Government on the other hand has a vested interest in winning the next election - plenty of incentive there for them to grant the right to profit at the expense of the land.
I can certainly see where you are coming from in the case of, for instance, a property owner who makes a windfall gain because some new infrastructure (eg a road) increases the value of his property. Why should the property owner capture a gain that was really a result of an investment by taxpayers?
I can also see the case for revisiting deals where the benefits were not honestly obtained (eg mining companies in Africa dealing with corrupt Governments).
By and large though Governments are not the best owners of land. A drive through any regional area (or any suburb of our capital cities for that matter) will prove this point. Well maintained and cared for private property vs rubbish dump quality Govt land.
If not for booming China I suspect we would not be having this discussion. BHP, Rio etc (and Gina) would just be some mining companies not making any more money than the banks and others. However because they have been the beneficiaries of a resources boom suddently (after decades) a chunk of Australians are turning around and saying that these minerals (that they had no interest in exploring for or developing) belong to the nation!
Interestingly I don’t notice these same Australians getting quite so excited about claiming their share of rice farms in the Riverina!!
Sorry to have to disagree but I suspect we would make much greater inroads into alleviating property through strict enforcement of property rights then we ever will by handing greater economic power to the many corrupt and evil Governments of Africa (and elsewhere)…. PR
Posted Tuesday, 04 October 11 at 12:39AM
PR,
Zimbabwe is the antithesis of what I have been suggesting. It is a landlord’s government; the landlords being, like everywhere else, the allies of the government in power. It has *very* strict enforcement of property rights - and yet it is in dire poverty. The land is *excluded* from the people.
“After conquest and confiscation have been effected, and the State set up, its first concern is with the land…. In its capacity as ultimate landlord, the State distributes the land among its beneficiaries on its own terms.” (Albert J. Nock, Our Enemy the State)
Land does lead to automatic rewards, an issue noted as far back (in economic terms) as Locke. Whilst value is in part derived from human labour and capital investment one cannot ever deny the effects of exclusion of natural resourced from others without compensation. The situation is, of course, worse now than it was in Locke’s time.
You keep on suggesting that I am talking about governments owning land. That is a misrepresentation of everything I have written on this subject. To say that the public is the rightful owner of the value of the land does not to suggest that the government owns the land. I do not know where you got this idea from, but it’s wrong.
Private ownership of land or government ownership of land, either without compensation to the public which is excluded from its value and use, is the single greatest cause of the “resource curse” which causes poverty in this world. I wish this just a matter of interpretation but Ricardo’s Law of Rent (correctly described this law as the “pons asinorum” of economics by John Stuart Mill) remains true, whether we want to it be so or not.
Regards, Lev
Posted Tuesday, 04 October 11 at 2:32PM
Sorry friends, I’m a bit late on this one, but here goes:
PRex, “Interestingly I don’t notice these same Australians getting quite so excited about claiming their share of rice farms in the Riverina!!”.
Good point, maybe we should; the land use change in the Riverina has costs. I’ve just returned from camping in WA, and the Wheatbelt, from Dwellingup right up to Kalbarri, is as good an example as the Riverina. I guess 99.9% of people would see that agricultural land use is a higher value state of land, but this is because the cost of loss of habitat aren’t priced in. Let’s not pretend that growing grains is a selfless and noble act for feeding the global population; it’s a destructive and consuming activity for private profit, with no compensation for driving native species to the brink of extinction, through habitat loss and exporting our water. The Numbats, Boodies, Woylies, etc, they are paying, with not only their lives but their species. Feeding the global population for private profit has a direct and uncompensated impact on values I prize. Sure, there are taxes, I get that, but it’s not enough. People need to pay the true cost of food, without fuel subsidies etc, and which includes a some rental for the ongoing habitat deprivation inherent in farmland. The political economy of farming has never faced up to this. And as farmers withdraw, rather than sell this off to a foreign sovereign wealth fund who will continue to farm it to feed an already unsustainable global population, it should be de-stocked and rehabilitated. (For those interested, my Dryandra reserve Numbat count was ZERO, although we can thank foxes and cats as much as habitat destruction).
Hmmm, not my clearest comment, but I am so angry after my trip. The anthropocene period will not end well. I am ashamed.
Posted Tuesday, 04 October 11 at 10:59PM
Jazzmaster
So you’d basically shift all or most of our food production offshore somewhere? (Australia is a net importer of food)
Not sure even the grandmaster of the lefties - Bob Brown - agrees with this strategy. Although I can never tell with Bob. One second he wants to save someone 0.25% on their mortgage and the next he wants to shut down their small business and bankrupt them.
The point is that we can’t have it both ways. We can restrict agriculture to protect the Numbats. But then we have to import our food from Asia or Africa (where who knows what environmental and human damage is going on) or we have to stop eating (or at least not eat quite so much). Personally I don’t mind the latter, especially as it would probably help reduce our long run health costs, but fat taxes etc have never been too popular politically.
Lev
I guess I’m getting all confused or perhaps it is just a question of terminology. I would say that someone who has possession and long term use of, or the ability to control the use of, a piece of land pretty much has “ownership” of it.
Now given that the “public” is not an entity that can own anything (including land) your comments suggest that either all land is government owned or, alternatively, each person owns a parcel of land (ie we own 1/22millionth of Australia each). If it is indeed the latter then are we not just straight back into private ownership of land (just that we have re-allocated it)?
Or is it just a gigantic free-for all where everyone rushes to take possession of some vacant land and puts up a big wall (with guns of course) to stop anyone else taking it off them?
Whilst I didn’t get the chance to read all 200 pages of the paper you posted, what I did read seemed to be somewhat abstract - Government’s “extracting” etc rather than just a simple outline of how this proposed system would work.
It also wasn’t clear how this system would apply in the case of mining companies who often don’t actually own land. They have simply acquired (from Govt) the right to explore and extract. If exploration/extraction rights are also to be owned by “the public” who does the exploring and extracting?
Perhaps you could put some flesh on the bones?
Cheers PR
Posted Wednesday, 05 October 11 at 9:43AM
PR,
Ownership (especially in land) is typically referred to a “bundle of rights”. So whilst one has title, they are also subject to planning laws etc. Likewise one can hold title and possession in usufruct, with the site-rental value going back to the community, which can be used to fund public bodies or to be equally shared among the population (such as done, in part with the Alaskan Permanent Fund), or a combination thereof.
The basic proposition is that governments, instead of deriving their income from labour, or capital investments or transactions, derive it from natural resources instead. This is a principle that can be applied in a range of circumstances.
Consider, for example, the research of Professor Gavin Wood from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute in reviewing related material from the Henry Review; limit negative gearing, drop stamp duties and broaden land tax. The result? Better quality buildings which are cheaper with a smaller urban footprint - not to mention more people employed in productive industry.
With regard to mining it is relatively simple; increase the resources tax and reduce the taxes on payroll, equipment etc. Make it easier and cheaper to extract the minerals, but remove the monopolistic and speculative profits from the same - as any economist will tell you the resources tax can be increased to the limit of economic profit (that is, business profit plus opportunity cost) and the mining companies will still come. The “public” doesn’t do the exploration/extraction - but they do receive a larger share of the value of the mineral wealth.
You might want to have a listen on how Norway does it: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/05/rvn_20100526.mp3
All the best, Lev
Posted Wednesday, 05 October 11 at 5:09PM
Lev
I am bit unclear as to whether you are arguing that Govt’s should be charging a portion of economic profits (a resources tax/royalty on everything) or a fixed rent/land tax.
If it is the former I would have thought this is pretty much the system we have now for minerals etc (even prior to the resources tax) where Govt grants exploration rights and charge a royalty (which - as you say - could be as high as “economic profit) from any production which eventuates? Are you arguing we should extend royalties to all forms of production from land?
If instead you are proposing a fixed rent/land tax regime I would say that whilst it may currently work for minerals (due to us being in a resources boom) it is hardly going to encourage future exploration or development. In relation to other land uses I think you are massively over-estimating land’s profitability. Even without fixed rents/high land taxes there are many farms for sale without anyone interested in buying and there are many shops sitting vacant or whose owners are working 7 days a week to make the equivalent of what others make in rent.
I don’t think it is anyone’s interest to end up in a situation like Michigan where thousands of properties are up for sale for nominal prices just to enable their owners to avoid significant property taxes (or have been transferred to owners who can’t be found/bankrupt etc). I also don’t see why we should be charging someone rent/land tax who simply wants to own land for somewhat altruistic purposes (eg creating a wildlife sanctuary).
There is also the very significant issue in that by giving Govt a significant economic interest in land/resources you create a conflict of interest when it comes to legislating for such land/resources. A significant portion of the world wants Govt to carbon tax climate change out of existence BUT is a Govt who stands to lose a major portion of their revenue from such action going to be inclined to listen to them? PR
Posted Monday, 10 October 11 at 12:45PM
PRex - I probably shouldn’t be posting when the thread has gone cold. But I will anyway, perhaps you’ll read it.
You’re right, Australia is now a net importer of food, or at least according to the following article, is a net importer in “industries that manufacture fresh and processed food, beverages and groceries”. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/australia-a-net-importer-o…. “Groceries” however has a major component of medicines and cosmetics, so regarding edibles it would seem we are still a net exporter.
Pastoral leases include a requirement that the land be used for the purpose of the lease, ie grazing / agriculture. There is an interesting issue going on with the former Eurardy Station in WA which is contiguous with parts of Kalbarri NP. The Bush Heritage Trust has “bought” it, and destocked it and commenced rehabilitation & management, with the strategic aim of creating a corridor to the Northeast up to the Toolonga Nature Reserve. When I say “bought it”, they have acquired the lease form the former leaseholder (it had become a marginal business proposition I think), but will potentially run foul of the lease conditions. Apparently this will require legislative change to allow conservation as an allowable activity. At present they are in limbo; worst case is the lease is terminated and the crown re-leases to a pastoralist (read international big-ag). So my understanding of ownership here is that the Crown continues to own this land and assigns a bundle of rights, and they are doing this is my behalf, which goes back to my original (and yes, I agree, obscure) proposition, that where the crown allows private profit activities on crown land there should be compensation for alienated values. Consider that if you leased a plot of land for a service station, there’d be a “make good” clause in the lease, and there’s now a fairly big industry around contamination management and land remediation, often to manage levels of contamination (damage)that are surprisingly small. Yet we don’t apply this to agricultural land. The significant point I make is not that the values are temporarily alienated, but that extinction is forever. Frankly I don’t want the compo, I want a more workable solution for the cohabitation of humans with other species, but I’m trying to establish the argument in a framework understood by mainstream commercial minds. So, yes, I would extend royalties to all forms of production from land; in principle I see no reason why extractive industries are different from acgriculture. Then use these royalties to develop “cohabitation” strategies. (Maybe I should email Saul Eslake, after his turn at the tax forum on negative gearing!)
Check out the Bush Heritage strategy if you haven’t heard of them. http://www.bushheritage.org.au/
Anyway, I’ll catch you in the comments pages another time. (PS - Lev - interesting stuff).