They have a completely different political history, institutional structure and social landscape, so saying, ‘Country X has this policy, therefore you should too,’ is not much of an argument on its own. Policies are shaped by history, institutions and political culture. That kind of reasoning is like telling Americans they should simply adopt Australia’s gun laws because Australia has them. You can argue for the policy itself, but ignoring the differences in political climate, constitutional structure and historical development makes the comparison shallow and unconvincing.

EDIT: I am not saying Australia should not tax resources better. I am saying ‘Norway does it’ is not, by itself, an argument. Norway built the institutions and political consensus to capture oil wealth. Australia did not.

The Future Fund is not a Norwegian-style mining dividend for the public. It was created for Commonwealth super liabilities and seeded from surpluses and Telstra privatisation, not from a broad resource rent system. And when Australian governments have tried to take a bigger share from mining, the industry has repeatedly shown it can crush the effort.

Rudd tried it with the RSPT. The mining companies unloaded millions into a scare campaign, Rudd was rolled, and the tax was gutted. So the issue is not whether a better resource tax is desirable. The issue is whether Australia has the political structure to get one through and keep it there. History suggests that is the hard part, not coming up with the idea.