Activism of minor parties will endanger nation’s prosperity

Brett Woods delivers a chilling warning to those who vent their frustration with the major parties by voting for entities that would sacrifice the broad national interest for their own sectional obsessions (“Major parties the only path to avoid prosperity deadlock”, 26/2).

A case in point is the threat posed not only to new gas fields but also the ongoing operation of a development yielding royalties to the commonwealth and Western Australia, along with the loss of thousands of jobs.

Not only would the Greens continue to erect roadblocks to prosperity in the Senate, but if the teals hold balance of power in the House of Representatives when government is formed their approach to climate action would bring us back to the Dark Ages. Ironically, Peter Walsh, who was finance minister in the Hawke government, warned us 30 years ago that such green activism could bring us back to the 18th century.

The Greens and teals advocate prodigious spending on renewables and areas such as social housing and HECS relief but demand the end of all fossil fuel extraction and curbs on agriculture and manufacturing that would cripple them.

In old-time town hall political meetings, a wag at the back would demand where the money was coming from. A magic pudding is the only possible answer.

John Morrissey, Hawthorn, Vic

Judith Sloan’s article (“PM’s ‘green dream’ future vanishes into thin air”, 25/2) clearly articulates that the Albanese government has thrown “easy come, easy go” billions of our taxpayer money at subsidising everything.

It has managed to annihilate our once cheap electricity prices, destroyed our competitive advantage in manufacturing and delivered a dire cost-of-living crisis.

How can we possibly risk another three years of Labor’s self-centred, purely political experiment if we want a prosperous future for our grandchildren? Productivity Commission chairwoman Danielle Wood has said the Future Made in Australia scheme is potentially “creating a host of inefficient and uncomp­etitive firms forever reliant on subsidies”.

Deirdre Graham, Moss Vale, NSW

Our federal Treasurer often talks proudly about the two surpluses that have been delivered under his watch but he never talks about the fact they were achieved solely because of our resource exports. The question arises as to how future surpluses will be achieved if the ALP, the Greens and the teals continue their efforts to shut down our resource industries, particularly coal and gas, but also gold and other resources.

Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek is working hard to delay her approval for an extension to Woodside’s North West Shelf project until after the election, thereby avoiding a pre-election argument with the Greens and teals, who both have made it clear that in the event of a hung parliament they would insist that no approval were granted.

If our coal and gas and other mineral exports are progressively shut down, how will Australia pay for all the social services that people currently enjoy, such as hospitals and healthcare, aged care, the NDIS, pensions and unemployment benefits?

And what about all the other funding priorities such as defence, perennial subsidies to everyone for renewable energy and infrastructure needs? Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers should be called on to explain where all the money will come from in the absence of large resource export earnings. Perhaps they think the Future Made in Australia policy will generate massive earnings and that pigs will fly.

Brian Barker, Bulimba, Qld

Why have an inquiry into nuclear power if the recommendations are not available before the election (“Nuclear could blow up on taxpayers”, 26/2)?

While opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has called the inquiry a “sham”, he knows his side of the argument was well represented through the hearings around the country.

Voters know from the interim report that “it is clear from the evidence considered that the deployment of nuclear power generation in the Australian context is currently not a viable investment of taxpayer money”.

There is still time for the Coalition to come up with a viable policy.

Maggie Cowling, Coburg North, Vic