Government must address beef industry concerns on imports

One has to question the Albanese government’s thinking and how the Prime Minister came to the conclusion it would be a good idea to lift a ban placed on American beef (in since 2003 and reviewed in 2019), seemingly without any consultation with our beef industry (“Our farmers have beef with PM’s ‘move to woo President’ ”, 25/7).

A restriction only recently has been lifted for those Australians who resided in Britain in the 1980s and 90s at the height of the mad cow disease outbreak so they may be able to donate blood. However, the ban on British beef since 1996 is still in place.

Donald Trump puts a tariff on Australian goods and the Australian Prime Minister obliges by opening our borders to what may be dodgy American and Mexican beef?

If this is deal sealed, then I would recommend that the appropriate labels be in place for consumers so we know before purchasing any products where the beef originated, so as to have a choice between homegrown Aussie cows or foreign-raised cows.

Strict tests will have to be adhered to before permitting beef from cattle raised in far-flung countries. It will be a bit like knowing if eggs are from free-range hens or battery caged hens.

Susan McLochlan, Caboolture South, Qld

Refund the funding

The government reportedly wants its hydrogen funding to Fortescue refunded (“We want our hydrogen funding back, Twiggy’ ”, 25/7). I hold no brief for Andrew Forrest but it seems to me the government wants to have its cake and eat it, too.

Presumably, the government contribution (seed funding – call it what you will) was designed to encourage Forrest to do what he would not otherwise do. That is, the government was accepting some, or all, of the risk of a speculative venture. Do private venture capitalists get their money back if a project fails?

Let the government wear the cost and opprobrium of this bad decision. Maybe it will think twice before throwing more money down the renewables sinkhole.

Peter O’Brien, Kiama, NSW

Litigation won’t help

Your editorial (“The climate lawyers’ grand buffet”, 25/7) is an apt description for the International Court of Justice’s landmark ruling that paves the way for climate-related reparations.

This lawyer-written decision misses the mark. It focuses on blame rather than solutions. Suing nations won’t cut emissions, disrupting supply without changing demand does nothing except harm the poorest. Developing countries, which rely heavily on affordable fossil fuels, will suffer the most, deepening poverty and inequality.

Real progress on climate change lies in reducing demand. That means helping people, especially in poorer nations, access alternatives and use energy more efficiently. It’s a path that won’t enrich lawyers, nor allow the wealthy to maintain their current lifestyles unquestioned. But it’s the only ethical and effective one.

Climate change is a global issue requiring co-operation and investment, not courtroom battles. Litigation may enrich a few, but it won’t cool the planet.

Don McMillan, Paddington, Qld

Libs must wake up

The Australian voters gave the ALP a clear majority knowing the Liberal National Party represented the good old days of the 1950s up to the early 2000s, when money was easily dug up and wealth was created by selling land and houses, the Aussie dream.

Voters under 50 years old are resigning themselves to the uncertainty of future salaries, transient jobs and the prospect of artificial intelligence, all to pay for borrowings to buy a million-dollar home.

The Coalition will need to think of Australia, not its own petty power struggles. It looks a sorry rump of a once powerful force. Sussan Ley has an opportunity to give the Coalition credibility. We need the opposition to be constructive.

Australians deserve a superior leadership at such a confusing and critical time across the world.

Phillip M. Parsonson, Cheltenham, Vic

Civics education

Thank you, Chris Merritt, for highlighting the need for a priority in civics education (“Education about civics is a matter of priority”, 25/7).

The ignorance in the community is enormous. It is commendable that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Milton Dick, is committed to visiting schools to highlight the need. However, for 16-year-olds, the goings-on in politics and our parliaments are a long way from their minds and their experience.

Civics can be quite dull. The recent suggestions to give 16-year-olds the vote would liven up their interest. But schools aren’t that interested in civics and young people aren’t generally interested. Our ignorance is only becoming worse.

David Bruce Lanham, Yeronga, Qld