Lang Hancock, “Minerals — politicians’ playthings?,” Investors Chronicle and Stock Exchange Gazette (London), October 1973, p. 44.

The past few weeks have not been without incident in Australia. We have had a worthwhile 25 per cent tariff cut; a further revaluation of our currency; the green light from both State and Commonwealth Government for establishing a new iron ore mine at Wittenoom in Western Australia. There has been a new chapter in the Minsec affair, with a speculative takeover bid for the Australian-owned portion of iron mining’s lame duck, Robe River, the worst Stock Market collapse for 12 years and a dwindling of our foreign exchange. Further onslaughts on the mining industry by the Commonwealth Government could result in the virtual demise of the gold mining industry.

Fourteen years ago mining was a dead duck politically, after having been the mainstay of Australia in the depression. Then came the giant discoveries of bauxite, iron ore and nickel. Now minerals are the playthings of Australian politicians.

Federal advisers now pick on minerals as the butt of their fiscal policies, identifying them as the primary cause of the surplus overseas balances that are in turn being blamed for Australian overspending and inflation. These federal advisers have made the unorganised mining industry their favourite whipping-boy. As a result of their activities, the special tax incentives that prospecting and mining first began receiving in 1915 have been swept away. The essentially high risk nature of prospecting and mining, which was the raison d’etre for these tax concessions, is no longer recognised. Many important discoveries have been made and continue to be made by independent prospectors.

Australian mining history is spiced with the names of Paddy Hannan, discoverer of Kalgoorlie; Campbell Miles of Mount Isa, Charlie Rasp of Broken Hill and many other historic names. In more recent times the Kambalda, Scotia and Windarra nickel deposits were found by Australian prospectors and subsequently sold to Australian companies.

One needs to ask if the Labor Government’s attack on the gold mining industry is intentional or merely short-sighted? Electorally, such a move cannot harm the Labor Party. Perhaps it is just an integral part of Canberra’s policies, which have already involved the Reserve bank’s 25 per cent retention of capital without interest; repeated revaluation’s; non-renewal of exploration licences; the freeze on farm-ins; the threat to use export licences to curtail mining; removal of partial exemption from income tax for certain minerals and, in particular, the removal of the exemption from income tax applicable to gold; and the removal of the 20 per cent investment allowance, thus increasing mineral processing costs and necessitating higher grades to make deposits viable.

These onslaughts on mining cannot hurt Mr. Whitlam politically, at any rate in the short term, because the State most affected by them is Western Australia, which did not vote for him at the last election anyhow.

To understand his Government’s policy one needs to compare him, as his closest journalistic admirers do, with that great “survival man”, Sir Robert Menzies.

The Menzies image was more glittering overseas than at home, and it appeals to Whitlam to outshine Menzies on the world stage. He certainly played brilliant politics by focussing worldwide on himself in protesting against the French nuclear test at Muraoa. At home inflation is causing over-full employment. Some hopes of saner practices was generated by the sensible decision to slash all tariffs by 25 per cent.

What is needed for industry, as well as the domestic consumer, is an across-the-board cut in all government department spending. The present state of affairs cannot go on indefinitely. But where will the remedy lie? Will Whitlam finally tame his left wing plus the trade unions, and repair the damage to Australia’s basic industries? Or will the Liberal Party finally get themselves a leader that the public will follow and oust the Whitlam government?

Or will the leader of the opposition in the Upper House (where Labor is without a majority), organise his party to throw out legislation, such as that proposing to give added socialist powers to the AIDC, central control of offshore minerals and the formation of numerous unwarranted Government departments?

Or failing any of the above, will Western Australia find a leader capable of achieving secession from the rest of Australia?