There is just one other woman on the Forbes list of the 40 richest Australians, and just 15 women on BRW‘s Rich 200 list. Quite simply, the idea that a woman would sit on top of Australia’s wealth ladder would have been largely unthinkable even five years ago.
While Rinehart inherited her mining empire Hancock Prospecting from her father Lang Hancock, she bristles at the idea she inherited wealth — and with good reason.
When Hancock died in 1992, he left his daughter a company teetering on the edge of collapse. The China-driven resources boom was more than two decades ago, and Lang’s poor business decisions — including a failed attempt to sell iron ore to Romania — had left the business with crippling cashflow problems and huge debts.
Rinehart set about turning the business around, and exploiting the huge iron ore resources Hancock Prospecting owns.
The huge rise in Rinehart’s fortune — up from $US2 billion to $US9 billion is a little deceiving as Forbes underestimated her fortune last year. (Disclosure — I assisted with some Forbes valuations, although not that of Rinehart.)
Nevertheless, it is true that Rinehart’s rise has been as fast as it been large.
Back in 2002, the 1.25% royalty Rinehart receives from every tonne of iron ore sold by Rio Tinto subsidiary Hamersley Iron was delivering Hancock Prospecting about $10 million a year. Rising commodity prices means that amount has risen to about $170 million.
On top of this, Rinehart has a half share in the Hope Downs mine, run by Rio Tinto in a joint venture. This project is thought to deliver up to $700 million a year at present.
What makes Rinehart particularly fascinating is that her empire is only at the start of a large expansion program.
Rinehart has plans for another Pilbara iron ore mine, called Roy Hill, plus two giant coal mines in Queensland, worth an estimated $15 billion.
Turning these plans into mines represents Rinehart’s greatest challenge — they will require the raising of vast amounts of finance (a process Rinehart is currently undertaking, by selling stakes in some projects to finance others), the building of infrastructure such as train lines and ports, and the construction of a series of huge mines.
She will also need to manage these expansion plans against the backdrop of shifting commodity prices. Right now, the markets (and China’s economy) is in Rinehart’s favour. But will these conditions last long enough for her to carry out her expansion plans?
Rinehart’s biggest entrepreneurial tests lie ahead of her, but there will be other tests too.
Rinehart clearly has things to say — particularly about the mining tax and what she sees as a need to stop investment dollars leaving Australia — and a platform to say it from, thanks to her purchases of stakes in Ten Network and Fairfax Media.
But how will she try to shape public opinion and government policy? Does she have any realistic hope of doing either? Does the notoriously media shy entrepreneur really want to step into the limelight.
It’s going to be fascinating how the Rinehart story — and her amazing fortune — develops over the coming decade.
This first appeared on SmartCompany.
What you people don’t seem to realise is that a significant number of men inherited empires far greater than Hancock Prospective and have created nothing – look at James Packer! He has diminished his father’s fortune rather than expanded it. Far from “complaining” about how her father “left her with nothing”, Gina Rineheart has taken what she was fortunate enough to inherit and built her own empire. Perhaps she is not a completely “self-made woman”, however she was smart enough to capitalise on her opportunities.
Captain Planet, Rineheart did not create her empire so that she could “live in unparalled luxury and never work again”. She was already rich enough to do that when her father died. She obviously is a buisiness-savvy woman who enjoys her work, and the power her wealth can potentially give her. Just like many of the world’s richest men. Did Warren Buffet stop working after he bacame the world’s richest man? No. Did he choose to live in the lap of luxury as he was entitled to? No. He lives in the same house he occupied before he became a billionaire. However he is still working on his business and getting richer by the day. WHy should we expect Rineheart to act differently?
Zut Alors, I agree, “establishing the world’s best renewable power industry in Oz” would be a great thing for Rineheart to achieve. However it would also be great if Frank Lowy (instead of blowing millions on a failed World Cup bid), Ken Talbot or Andrew Forrest “exercised their imaginations” (and their sizable fortunes) to do something for the environment. They’re also rich enough and Talbot and Forrest work in the same industry as Rineheart. Why does everyone place such high demands on Gina Rineheart? Would they do the same for a man? Probably not.
I think it’s also telling how sexist Australian culture still is that everyone in the comments is calling her “Gina” instead of giving her the respect of her full name. Has anyone referred to Frank Lowy as simply “Frank”? Or considered calling James Packer “James”? And Shadow Boxer, calling her a “greedy fat mole” is acceptable only if you would call any male owner of a coal or iron empire the same. If you would, fine. Otherwise your opinion is based not on rational judgement but on chauvenism.
Gina Rineheart deserves to be celebrated not for who she is but for what she represents for women in the corporate world. She will now be “immortalised in history” for the first female richest person in Australia. Just like Julia Gillard will be remembered, not for her “Education Reforms” and her stance on gay marriage, but for being the first female Prime minister of Australia. She represents a positive step forward in equal opportunities for women.
And that is a good reason for being remembered.
Rinehart clearly inherited the means for acquiring great wealth, if not all of the $9 billion upon her father’s death.
I Agree Gavin. They say getting the first few million is the toughest. Once you hit that, growing your wealth is easier as you can take the risks/buy the talent you need to get those extraordinary returns.
she didn’t exactly rise from poverty, did she? those contacts and corporate memory she inherited from Lang would have been invaluable.
as far as influencing government policy goes …. good luck! aside from her stance not making any sense, those unedifying images from the anti-tax rabble on the perth foreshore last year will come back to haunt her.
“exploiting the huge iron ore resources Hancock Prospecting owns”.
Poor Gina, Lang died and left her with nothing… except the lion’s share of the iron ore in the Hamersley Ranges in Western Australia.
Which is one of the world’s richest Iron Ore deposits. So concentrated is the iron, it is shipped out to Asian customers exactly as it is dug out of the ground… you don’t even have to process or smelt it. It’s over 60 % pure iron and is pure enough to feed directly into a steel foundry, as soon as the shovel gets it out of the ground.
80% of Australia’s Iron ore production and 13 % of the world’s Iron Ore production comes from this region.
And poor little Gina complains because her Daddy left her with nothing but….. Most of the Iron Ore in the Pilbara and the company structure, employees and Infrastructure to exploit it. Gee, what a self made woman.
It amazes me why the incredibly rich turn their energies only to becoming more rich. So Gina now wants to open up massive coal mines in Queensland…. this from someone already so rich she could live the rest of her life in unparalleled luxury and never work again. Why not focus your time on developing some solar thermal power generation in the Pilbara region Gina? We don’t need any more coal mines and you certainly don’t need the money.