It is obvious that Australia needs a lot more money to fill it's Treasury pot and there is a desperate search for ways to fill that void. Increasing the GST from the present ten percent to fifteen percent and applying it to food have been considered - and rejected. Now we are looking at ending negative gearing. It has been suggested that the retired be forced to mortgage their homes to become self funded. Each and every suggestion causes the politicians to worry that it's implementation may be rejected - at the ballot box !
Of course the reason we have this money problem can be sheeted home to the ending of the resources boom. When China had an insatiable demand for our iron ore and coal the Treasury flow was meeting our needs but now it seems the entire world has fallen on hard times. We are constantly looking for new export opportunities and urging industry to be more inventive but economic reality dictates that the only sure way to stem the flow of red ink is to implement a changed tax measure.
Now a new suggestion has been quietly introduced into this tax debate. We have been called " the lucky country " and it is a fact of life that we have an entire continent at our disposal. It is so vast that few ordinary citizens have ever visited other than it's main tourist attractions and this vastness brings with it opportunity.
The world has longed mulled over the problem of how and where to store radioactive waste. We in Australia are still arguing over the minuscule radioactive waste generated by our reactor at Lucas Heights and the byproduct of radioactive isotopes used in the medical field. The site for a permanent repository has eluded the politicians because public opinion constantly applies the NINBY opposition to all areas selected.
If we are to solve our money problem without inflicting some form of additional taxation on the long suffering public we need to embrace new thinking. We have a continent with a lot of spare room and the world needs a storage facility for radioactive waste. Trade is the exchange of favours for money and should we agree to accept the radioactive waste from other countries the fee for this service and the continuing site rental would more than cover the billions that we need.
The first reaction to that suggestion is probably a knee jerk rejection. Radioactive waste is a dangerous substance that persists for many thousands of years, and yet we are probably looking at a site of no more than five square miles on which to build a repository to hold the world's radioactive waste. This waste is stored in sealed drums and establishing a secure warehouse in a remote part of our outback would ensure a continual money flow that would avoid the necessity for all those unpleasant measures under consideration.
Basically, this is the difference between a country that used to earn it's living by mining and manufacturing, adopting to the provision of " services " in one form or another. In this case it is using our remoteness and harnessing it to the need of other countries to store something they are prepared to pay big money to have serviced by a third party. Such is the basis of all service industries. The provider in this case is supplying a service not available elsewhere - and is charging a fee applicable to the inconvenience it will cause us.
Providing a remote storage site will create a new industry and with it - jobs. The risks of storing radioactive waste are more an illusion than a reality. The nuclear disasters in Chernobyl and in Japan were operating nuclear reactors. Radioactive waste held in numerous world countries has been entirely accident free and there is no reason that it should pose a risk if held in a remote site here in Australia.
This suggestion should be dispassionately and sensibly considered on it's merits. We can virtually name our own price if we decide to provide such a service and with that free university education for all, the disability support scheme and the entire education revamp are within reach without the need for additional tax funding.
The exchange of money for a service always requires a cost to the provider. It is just a matter of if this exchange is acceptable to the Australian public ? Even as a suggestion it will certainly stir controversial debate !
No comments:
Post a Comment