Australian public needs to be clear on Greens preferencing

The Australian is right to continue reminding us of the dangers posed by voting for the Greens, and to point out that voters who “compromise” by giving them a preference vote may achieve the same result: a hung parliament where every vote is at the mercy of the Greens’ destructive, economically illiterate ideology. The Labor Party can be relied upon to do “whatever it takes” so no matter what it says before the election, we can be sure they will be ready to hop into bed with the Greens, albeit holding their nose. Many readers of this newspaper would be able to see the danger a Greens-led agenda poses to our economic future, but it’s doubtful whether any of this year’s new voters will read this message or be much interested in the outcome of their vote.

Kerry MacDermott, Binalong, NSW

The Australian’s editorial which suggests that one in eight voters will put the Greens at No. 1 on their voting slips is a most important revelation. They certainly should have a rethink before they make such a decision. Anyone who believes the Greens offer Australians a better society is naive beyond the extreme.

A minority Albanese government in partnership with the Greens would be an absolute disaster for Australia. As a conservative voter, I would prefer an Albanese majority government instead of a minority one that holds hands with Adam Bandt. If the Greens are successful here, then hard work, thriftiness, aspiration and inventiveness will fly out the window. The Greens along with many Laborites want the people to be completely dependent upon the government. They wish for a nanny state whereby people believe the government will look after their every need. And of course this guarantees that once people become dependent upon the government of the day, they will continue to vote for them.

Peter Surkitt, Sandringham, Vic

A brave ruling

I was grateful to read Bernard Lane’s comments on judge Andrew Strum’s ruling. He is a clear, loud voice of reason in the terrible noise around children and gender identity. Why was the foundational medical care concept of “first do no harm” ignored by this gender clinic in the rush to medicalise its treatment of a child? Many parents could attest to the fact that at any time in childhood, their son or daughter might choose to wear clothing that does not reflect in stereotypical fashion the biological gender they are born with. But that is what childhood is about – doing things in the safe space of parental care, not having things done to you in a medical vacuum that changes you for life, irreversibly. In any other context, it could be argued that what was proposed was child abuse. First, do no harm. It is important that a voice like Justice Strum’s is heard. He was careful and considered. Exemplary.

Robyn Roberts, Prahran, Vic

SOS on gas

Natural gas is vital to Victoria’s economy, yet the state government has done everything it can to undermine supply, including a constitutional ban on fracture stimulation (“Victoria’s bombshell SOS on gas”, 10/4). This ban doesn’t apply to imported gas, even if it’s been fracture stimulated elsewhere, also effectively shutting out developing local deep and shale gas resources. Victoria’s Energy Minister, Lily D’Ambrosio, now wants taxpayers to underwrite LNG imports into Victoria and NSW. Meanwhile, NSW has also discouraged local gas investment, as seen in the delay in approving the Narrabri Gas Project. The result? Subsidised foreign LNG that pays no state royalties is being used to compete with Australian gas.

Don McMillan, Paddington, Qld

Retail politics

Judith Sloan rightly gives the verdict to Angus Taylor in his stoush with Treasurer Jim Chalmers (“Clear win to Taylor: Chalmers off his game in Treasurers’ debate”, 10/4). As she writes, Chalmers is an effective retail politician, that is a salesman, but was caught out by a man with extensive business experience in the private sector, where the consequences of poor decisions must be paid for. Chalmers’s whole career has been in the Labor machine and the public sector, where it’s the taxpayers who pick up the tab. Taylor’s rebuttal of the claim that Labor has improved the bottom line by $177bn by pointing to debt growth in the budget papers reflects on the accuracy of Chalmers’s cherished surpluses. The salesman’s expense account for the year omits those pesky little “off-budget” items like the Future Made in Australia and the Clean Energy funds. Chalmers recited Labor’s furphy about Coalition cuts to health and education in 2013, when funding actually grew for three terms, which Taylor instantly refuted. To Chalmers’s other scare that $600bn for nuclear reactors under the Coalition would be funded by cuts to ser­vices, the answer is independent modelling shows them to be cheaper. Taylor certainly knows his stuff.

John Morrissey, Hawthorn, Vic