Productivity Commission is crucial but ideology may impede our strategy

Productivity is crucial but ideology may impede our strategy

Paul Kelly impressively outlines the issues of the productivity debate and rightly focuses on the Liberal-Labor ideological divide (“Chalmers pursues fresh thinking for higher productivity”, 26/7). And it’s good to read that Jim Chalmers is pursuing fresh thinking for the cause. But without the resort to the inclusion of dubious wellness considerations in the determination of GDP per head, just how will government action lead to a better result? We are all ears, Treasurer.

Bob Miller, Leederville, WA

It is too obvious that Jim Chalmers and the Albanese government want to “reform and improve” the Productivity Commission because they do not like its accurate and objective findings, particularly in relation to union activity restricting the improvements in productivity that our nation so desperately needs. Now, suddenly the Productivity Commission produces a report that enhances some aspects of the voice. Observe Anthony Albanese and Chalmers now agreeing with and quoting the above report assiduously.

Peter M. Wargent, Mosman, NSW

Paul Kelly nails Jim Chalmers to the wall in this era of government intervention in productivity policy. As Kelly points out, Chalmers claims his aspiration is higher productivity based on new sources of economic thinking. So far during Chalmers’ term as Treasurer, Australia’s productivity has fallen dramatically. Labor’s disastrous green energy and offshore manufacturing policies are a major reason. The oppressive socialist regimes of countries such as China are relishing this failure of productivity, which is the capitalist Western world’s greatest asset. Chalmers, a committed socialist, is trying to reset Australia’s productivity levels to a different standard of economic thinking. Labor’s current policy implementation appears contradictory to the average Aussie punter’s understanding of what higher productivity actually means in our capitalist society. Is Chalmers’ economic thinking for Australia’s future productivity levels based on capitalist or socialist sources?

John Bell, Heidelberg Heights, Vic

Nuclear fears

Alan Dupont (“Forging stronger links with allies still our best defence”, 26/7) dismisses Bob Carr’s warning that we could be sleepwalking into a US-led nuclear war over Taiwan based on the fundamental strategic assertion that mutually assured destruction “remains an effective deterrent”.

Dupont assures us we have nothing to fear since neither China nor the US is going to change its stance over fear of being targeted by each other. Such presumably unfounded fear, he argues, should not determine our national security praxis.

But according to the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, China has recently deployed DF-17 medium-range hypersonic missiles close to Taiwan that are capable of delivering nuclear warheads to the island within six to eight minutes.

While we cannot simply dismiss this forward nuclear posture as a mere deterrence strategy, neither should we dismiss China’s resolute determination to take over Taiwan at the risk of igniting a global nuclear war.

Vincent Zankin, Rivett, ACT

Weather or not electricity is required for everything we use and do. The cost of living is directly related to the cost of electricity, which is becoming prohibitively expensive and the worst is yet to come. Cut the cost of power and we significantly cut the cost of living.

Even if carbon dioxide proves to be a problem, our electricity generation contributes only part of Australia’s 1 per cent share of global carbon dioxide production.

Other countries pour out carbon dioxide as they please while we are sending ourselves to financial ruin.

So-called green energy is not free and never will be. The cost of production, installation, maintenance and disposal of the capturing and conducting devices is confirmed by the government to be enormous. The money would be better spent building hospitals or houses. History will show this to be an era of idiocy.

John Stapleton, Unley, SA

As a sometime statistician, let me add my two bob’s worth. To say the incidence of extreme weather events is increasing is to ignore other factors. They include the short period in history that weather has been recorded, an increase in the number of places worldwide monitoring weather, an increase in reporting of extreme events (sometimes hysterically), an increase in population causing extreme events (such as fires), and a tendency to attribute blame – climate change – ahead of considering natural weather variability.

Climate change hysteria means we are rewiring Australia for renewables while our aged suffer in poor accommodation, access to healthcare is very stretched, our education is lagging world standards and our poor cannot find a home.

Ian Morison, Forrest, ACT