Coalition comeback can’t squib the big question of net zero

Coalition comeback can’t squib the big question of net zero

The Coalition is going through a period of policy reconstruction, particularly on energy. This is right and proper: jumping in on net zero half-cocked is unwise (“Ley under the pump as Coalition uprising against net zero grows”, 24/7). The lessons learned from the last election are clear, no policy proposition was properly marketed. There is time now to do the homework. John Howard went with a GST because it was right and the proposition was sold to the electorate. The same applies to net zero. If the research says net zero is bad for the economy and the nation, it should be abandoned and, importantly, that outcome must be sold to the electorate. The same process applies to defence, taxation reform, migration, foreign affairs and energy.

Ian Murray, Cremorne Point, NSW

The National Party must sort out its leadership issues, and both the Nationals and the Liberals should deal quickly with their net zero policy. The two problems are connected, because the minor Coalition partner’s decision on climate action will impact on its policy negotiations with the Liberals. Many on both sides of the LNP would prefer to avoid fighting the next election with net zero a major issue. Even Peter Dutton went to the last election supporting it.

More importantly, most other major parties, plus the teal independents, accept net zero. The impacts of renewables transition, like solar and wind energy projects, on agricultural land in the regions are claimed to be worse than in the cities. Nationals could gain subsidies and concessions to make net zero more palatable, but on the overall policy the LNP would find it hard to get elected if it does not go with net zero. The leader of the Nationals could become deputy prime minister at the next election. That depends partly on how the LNP deals with net zero.

John Hughes, Mentone, Vic

Childcare crisis

What education does a pre-eight-month-old child need? Judith Sloan and Peta Credlin have both pointed out, in their well-informed articles, that a child needs a loving, devoted mother for the first years of its life, not “early education” or even “childcare” by a disinterested stranger. Now the government proposes to give more money to care centres to enable more babies, toddlers and preschool children to be looked after. Give the money to the mothers to encourage them to stay at home with their little ones until they are of school age.

Ida Haigh, Albion, Qld

Peta Credlin’s suggestions about childcare have some merit (“Subsidise parents, not childcare centres”, 24/7). Generally, more flexibility would benefit parents, children and the community. It might also allow parents time to participate in charity/volunteer work, now done mostly by 70- and 80-year-olds: food banks, op shops, Meals on Wheels, church social groups and so on.

Who will take their place in future? It’s not what the feminists envisaged, but baking for the church fete or being a hospital volunteer have a vital place in our community, and this has in part been lost in the quest for full workplace participation.

Roseanne Schneider, Brisbane, Qld

Peta Credlin makes the point that government subsidies per child per year are $30,000. Give that subsidy to parents and let them decide how they wish to spend that amount on the care of their preschool children. This might allow some parents to provide their own care in the home.

Karin Abrams, Beecroft, Qld

Peta Credlin’s piece is a thorough and well-researched examination of this important topic. Our whole society benefits when children, in their formative years, spend lots of time with their loving mother and father. This is borne out by the research of US social psychologist Erica Komisar, whom Credlin quotes, and by Katy Faust and Stacy Manning. Using tax relief for working families to facilitate parental choice is vastly superior social policy to universal childcare. The recent crisis in childcare centres provides a timely opportunity to give parents this alternative.

Peter Fenwick, East Melbourne, Vic

Chalmers costing us

Capital is used to generate income. You can borrow capital from a lender and you can accumulate capital from after-tax income. You put the capital to work to earn more income, accumulate after-tax capital to pay back lenders and/or generate more income, which is taxable. The point, which Jim Chalmers has missed, is that capital generates income, which generates a tax stream for essential services provided by our spendthrift government.

By taxing capital, Chalmers is attacking the source of income. When a government or business starts eroding its capital to pay for everyday and ongoing expenditure, that business has signalled that it is on the way out. And that is what Chalmers is proposing for Australia.

Jim Hoffmann, Hamilton, Vic