Hacker News Reader

Comment by spoonalious | Hacker News Reader

There is one: https://www.futurefund.gov.au/

it got raided by successive governments and the royalties we charge are tiny relative to other nations.

For example: Australian Gas consumers pay more to use natural gas in Australia, than people in Japan, using Australian LNG.

> For example: Australian Gas consumers pay more to use natural gas in Australia, than people in Japan, using Australian LNG.

Would it be fair to call that blatant corruption, or could some argument be made that it is not?

https://www.thejuicemedia.com/derp/

Yes.

Only if you can show a population dense country like Japan spends comparative amounts on infrastructure to supply the gas than a population sparse country like Australia.

In other words, only if you're lying is it corruption. Costs are not like for like, not even close. The gas itself is relatively cheap. The infrastructure and OpEx is not.

I imagine this is usually because these countries sign long-term supply agreements at fixed prices. This is good because it guarantees stability of demand for companies, but obviously bad if gas prices go up after signing said agreement.

I'd have to see a source for all three of those claims to believe it.

I'm a Kiwi, and our cheese is cheaper in Perth than anywhere in NZ...

...I feel like our governments had the same neoliberal consultants come in.

The future fund exists solely to pay public servant pensions and even then by it's own account it won't be enough to fund expected liabilities, the average person will never see a cent of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com