Gina Rinehart and Australia's debt - or is it?

I am so glad, Ms Rinehart, that you raised the 'debt' issue. Debt is a dirty word isn't it? Australians deplore debt because debt implies that we are shackled to the lenders, debt makes us slaves to the bankers, debt imprisons us in a life of drudgery, debt is expensive. And the last thing a government should be is in debt. After all, look at the financial meltdown in Europe all because of debt. At least that's what you would like us to think.

But the truth is not quite so clear, is it? So let's unpack this debt issue a little. You claim that Australia is in debt because of its welfare programs. So let me ask you, who are the bankers, the mortgagors, the lenders who have committed us to this parlous state? Would it be the one of the four banks that made eight billion dollars profit last year ... the same as the price it fetched as an asset the taxpayers unloaded only a few years ago? Or is it the federal reserve bank, to whom our esteemed treasurer made a lump sum payment of almost $9 billion shortly after he came to office? No, I didn't think so. Perhaps it's the World Bank or the IMF, so famous for holding undeveloped nations in their undeveloped nationhood so that Western Powers can pretend they are all knowing, all benevolent parents of all that is good and moral in the world.

No it's none of these. The debt you allude to is not an instrument of banking. According to your logic it's the taxpayers, the good and moral citizens who pay their taxes so that others, according to your logic, can welch off them. You count yourself as one of those good and moral citizens. You probably count Apple, Microsoft and Adobe as good and moral citizens too. And Rupert Murdoch no doubt who was recently handed a smidge shy of one billion dollars by the Australian taxpayers. Perhaps we should add in the $2 billion a year companies in your industry get handed by the Australian taxpayer in the form of fuel subsidies, yet when put upon to contribute a greater proportion of your super profits that arise from the extraction of the Australian citizens' mineral wealth, you and your friends turn to treachery and undermine (no pun intended) the good citizens' rights to demand a fair return on their assets. It certainly doesn't take long for a few billion to amass on the negative side of the ledger, does it?

Let's bring in a little metaphor. Let's say your company manager committed a million dollars today to lease a few limousines over the next 5 years. It's not a debt as such because it is budgeted for from company revenues which can be reliably predicted to cover the expense. The lessor trusts your company, the lessee, to meet that commitment. But, just one week following the manager's commitment, you replace him with someone you deem more competent, more aligned to your way of viewing the world, and that new manager decides that he does not care for that particular brand of limousine and would prefer a fleet of others that better fit his ideology, they are more expensive, but that doesn't matter because, were we to remove the burden of the existing leases, the revenue streams could quite comfortably accommodate the additional expense, especially if we were to obtain some tax concessions for their configuration and extra fuel consumption. One of the arguments the manager uses to justify his decisions, and one you use to justify your appointment of him, is to blame the previous manager for committing the company to a debt. It's curious how the limousines that were not wanted by the new manager are a debt, but the ones the new manager has committed to instead are not.

A social program introduced by a government to provide better education outcomes for our children, to provide effective medical assistance for people less fortunate in health than you or I, to ensure there are preserved forests, parklands, water and clean air, which have been budgeted to fit the existing and reasonably predicted revenue streams, revenue streams augmented by effective taxation of our most polluting industries and excessive profits by companies that, by and large, do not live here and move the money they should be contributing offshore, is not a debt. That is responsible management and responsible government. The real debt, because it will have to be repaid by future generations lies in the extraordinary payment to polluters who poison the air, foul the waterways, decimate industries, reduce working people's wages (and their taxation contributions through incomes and spending power), minimise investment into education and health, and sell assets owned through common wealth.

You are right, of course, to point out that people will rail against your absurdist ideology. You are wrong in thinking that we all want multinational investments come what may. We want responsible citizens of all types. Responsible means paying tax so that they can be considered a citizen. We are fed up with rapists. We are fed up with being lectured by moralists who believe they have some god-given right to rule, or because they inherited a great slab of money. Who continue to enjoy profits generated from over-generous government hand outs, who have no compunction about cheating an employee out of their wages, or fail to mitigate against the risks their employees take on a daily basis, all the while bleating about the risks they take - your risk is only money, many of your employees risk their lives, several have lost the bet - and yet when you are asked to pay a fair share, you and others who stand with you become national traitors. Paying tax is the entry fee to democracy, to good government. When you don't pay your taxes, when you act contrarily to building a national wealth out of the assets the people own, you are a traitor.

Your attack on the people of Australia is not an attack merely on the 'welfare programs' the costs of which by world standards are pretty low, it is an attack on the social fabric of the country and its democracy. Moreover, it is an attack on jobs, affordable investment opportunities, environment, food, health and education. You believe, with some moral certitude, that you deserve to be rich, that others deserve to be poor, and that the riches you enjoy can be enjoyed by anyone prepared to work hard. Worse, you expect the poor to be there to serve you, to serve your interests. Ms Rinehart, I'm sure you work hard, but your wealth did not come from hard work, we all know that: it came from inheritance and government largesse. Make no mistake, you are one supping at the tough of 'entitlement' to a far greater degree than those you pillage.