Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Truth the first casualty in the War Against Coal

By Graham Young - posted Tuesday, 10 July 2018

The truth is that after sales of goods and services, and payroll tax, coal royalties are the largest contributor of state generated revenue.

The AI set the benchmark on misrepresentation 4 years ago when it claimed that mining is supported by state governments to the tune of $17.6 billion (over 6 years, so the stretch is in on this figure as well, before looking at the facts).

The claim relied on counting capital expenditure on infrastructure, like railways, ports and dams, as subsidies that benefit coal mines, without taking into account that these assets generate an income from the miners. In other words they treat assets as though they were not only liabilities, but expenses.


The Australia Institute is a malicious meme factory, run by Green extremists, where the main product is not facts, but factoids designed to interact with confirmation bias and motivated thinking to infect mainstream media and metastasise.

I've put up a thousand dollars if they can prove their royalties claim, the AIP could do with the dough, and a financing model worked of the lies of your competitors is an attractive proposition to me, particularly with a crowd as mendacious as this one.

Alas, it's a funding model unlikely to garner much money for lack of a willing counterparty.

But perhaps the ACCC should have a look at whether institutions which use false claims to raise donations should be subject to the Trade Practices Act's penalties against false and misleading conduct.

And the mainstream media should at least do some basic fact checking before putting their claims to air. And, as this is very difficult in the context of a live interview, consider whether they should give them air time at all.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

This article was first published by The Spectator.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graham Young is chief editor and the publisher of On Line Opinion. He is executive director of the Australian Institute for Progress, an Australian think tank based in Brisbane, and the publisher of On Line Opinion.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graham Young

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graham Young
Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy