Australia shouldn’t be fooled by China’s green energy ‘ambitions’

Australia shouldn’t be fooled by China’s green energy ‘ambitions’

There is no doubt the big four Pilbara iron ore producers have exploited the low-hanging fruit. High-grade “fines” or “lump” with 65.3 per cent is exhausted, which means the cost of converting lower-grade ore to steel is exponentially higher (“Iron ore exports face new competition and problems”, 15/7). But there is a deep irony in China’s aim to decarbonise its industrial sector.

While China ramps up its use of electric arc furnaces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and aims to source higher grade ore to make the sintering process in traditional blast furnaces more environmentally friendly and cost effective, it continues to build two coal-fired power stations every week, presumably to power its furnaces. China’s inconsistencies in the green space are profound and there is a sense that this country, and the world, is being led down the primrose path.

Kim Keogh, Claremont, WA

Butt out, Malcolm

I’m sure most Australians thought former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull was axed from his position seven years ago. I must therefore ask what he’s doing discussing our defence arrangements with the US (“Turnbull discussed AUKUS defects with Pentagon policy chief”, 15/7).

Turnbull has always believed he’s the smartest person in the room and his ego surpasses most others who have had the top job in the country. Anthony Albanese may not be our best Prime Minister but when it comes to the league ladder he and Turnbull share the same rung. ANZUS may not be perfect but overall it is a worthy document; we are better off with it than without it.

As for AUKUS, only time will tell. If the US goes to war with China it will need all the subs it can get. If Australia commits to standing by the US in such a conflict then our subs will be an integral part of that commitment.

John George, Terrigal, NSW

A broken model

As Judith Sloan argues, it is high time Australian parents have the financial option of staying home to care for children under three. A thorough economic analysis of childcare subsidies for babies and toddlers, compared with increased paid parental leave, is needed to inform this debate. I have asked for such information many times, most recently from the Productivity Commission and federal ministers, without receiving a reply. In promoting choice for parents of young children, we should not create a situation in which only one parent has their career and financial future compromised. It shouldn’t all be down to mothers.

Susan Tregeagle, Yarralumla, ACT

Judith Sloan is right: feminism should mean choice. But for many Australian families that choice has vanished. Rising living costs and expensive, oversubscribed childcare mean most parents now must work, even if they’d prefer to stay home longer or seek more flexible care. It’s time we reframed the childcare model. Rather than throwing more money at a system that’s under strain, we should introduce a new, complementary option: a temporary visa program allowing families to employ trained, live-in caregivers from The Philippines. This works in Hong Kong, where the cost to families is about $12,000 to $15,000 a year. In Australia, our regulations inflate the same arrangement to $70,000 to $80,000, pricing it out of reach for all but the wealthy. If we could offer a well-regulated program at $20,000 to $25,000, families win, caregivers benefit and pressure on centre-based care is eased. Let’s ditch this broken model.

Tim Taylor, North Fitzroy, Vic

In name only

Nick Dyrenfurth’s expose of the Jewish Council of Australia was powerful (“Why the Jewish Council doesn’t care about Australian Jews”, 15/7). The JCA is clearly a misrepresentation. Its continued use of the name Jewish Council of Australia is misleading. A more honest name – such as Anti-Jewish Council of Australia – would reflect its true activities with at least some integrity.

Lee Smith, Kenmore, Qld

Ditch the cronyism

The Australian’s editorial on Creative Australia alludes to the obvious difficulties of peer assessment and to the importance of avoiding cronyism and ideological agendas when determining the recipients of arts grants (“Holding arts funds to account”, 15/7). It’s a murky world riddled with jealousies, envy and passionate practitioners. If we accept the inevitability of a national body to determine creative practice, then give Creative Australia’s bureaucracy a limited role to process applications and run necessary regulatory checks. But when it comes to the final decision of who will receive a grant, take out the peers and leave it to an algorithm based solely on available funds. By acknowledging the lottery qualities of the funding system, and by using mathematics as the final determinant, I’d argue the outcome for the public and arts community would be more equitable.

Richard Moore, St Kilda, Vic