Exactly how Henery sounded when describing whether our resources are infinite or finite. For economic purpose he implied infinite.
here is transcript Hansard 27th May 2010 http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S13174.pdf
Senator BOB BROWN?If I may interrupt: our resource is finite too, isn?t it?
Dr Henry?Well, it is a funny thing. Obviously it is; and yet?
Senator BOB BROWN?Obviously.
Dr Henry?And yet, there is a sense in which it is not?in that, presumably, there is quite a lot there that is not yet known.
Senator BOB BROWN?Is such a presumption safe? Dr Henry?No, it is not. It is not ?safe? in the sense that I think you would use the word ?safe?. It is not safe to assume that we will forever find ourselves discovering more and more and more. That would not be a safe assumption. But, when you look at the figures that Dr Gruen referred to, you find a horizon for minerals extraction which is very long indeed and certainly longer than the Norwegians have in mind. I think the Norwegians have looked at what happened in a number of other countries that have had a finite and well known stock of resources?some indeed close to Australia?and which have not prepared themselves for the time when those resources are fully depleted and have been fully exploited. That was one reason. I am no expert on these matters, although I know a bit about them. But my understanding is that they were concerned about the domestic inflationary impact of the strong revenues that they had flowing through and the recycling of those revenues to the population. They were also worried about an exchange rate impact and they found the solution in the development of a sovereign wealth fund, where the assets are invested offshore. This is a particular model which suits their circumstances. In what sense do we differ?
So are our resources finite or infinite, for economic purpose infinite otherwise we would demand the tax be treated as Norway do and create an offshore Sovereign Wealth fund to both take pressure off the currency and to build future wealth for when the resources are depleted.
It is hard for Rudd to justify spending the tax receipts at the same time suggesting we have finite resources.
Although Henry is sympathetic to Rudd I really do see a huge chasm in what he says the tax is about and what Rudd thinks.
