Dear editor,
What a pity we have such terrible Liberal Party oppositions federally, elsewhere in the country and particularly here in South Australia.
The jumping back on to the false ideology bandwagon of climate denial has shown itself again last week federally.
They just can’t get the seriousness of the proven science of anthropogenic climate change and the fact they will not win back seats they lost with this policy.
It is THE issue of our time and they seem to think proven organisations such as the CSIRO are wrong. Anthropogenic climate change is real.
The cheapest form of power generation is renewables. They are facts.
Climate change denial is a vote loser. Nuclear is a vote loser. Coal is a vote loser.
The Liberals may disappear as the party we know it by following this path to possible electoral oblivion.
Statewide, the Opposition leader here in SA looks like a rabbit in the spotlight during every interview.
This included one where he announced a new reef policy on the weekend that the current Labor government is already doing.
Who is advising these people? His blank face represents a blank policy framework.
And previously, a leader using and supplying high level drugs while in office. New candidates faking facts using AI while criticising others. What a rabble.
Your regular conservative voices writing letters to papers such as this should start corresponding with the Liberals to get their act together.
Democracy works much better with a decent opposition in parliament and the current two affecting me are simply not up to scratch.
Paul Burton, Denial Bay
Spend on needs, not wants
Dear editor,
Auditor-General Andrew Blaskett warned in his just-released annual budget review that an increasing amount of government spending would be on interest costs rather than on delivering services (‘$50bn red alert on debt’, The Advertiser, 12 November).
Whilst I recognise and accept that government expenditure is vital to support our economy and constituents, it has reached a stage where serious measures need to be taken to address the growing level of state government debt.
For our long-term financial future, South Australia needs a sustainable and responsible fiscal plan that reflects greater budgetary control, where spending is needs-based, allows necessary cuts to be made, requires our government to live within its means, and avoids deferring expenditure to a growing line of credit.
Wage and salary earners, as well as both small and large business enterprises, understand the importance of living within their means and recognise the importance of doing so.
Their expenditure is mostly focused on what they need, and at times, they accommodate purchases of what they want.
In doing this, it is necessary for both groups to scrutinise their budgets, make necessary spending cuts, and prioritise the financial outlays they make.
The consequences for not observing and adhering to these essential requirements can result in insolvency, bankruptcy or financial ruin for their future.
It is clear that these principles do not apply to our state government.
Their default option is to either raise rates, taxes and charges, or to put it on the state credit card, to be paid at a later date.
Whether our spiralling debt is paid by taxpayers today, tomorrow or sometime in the distant future, it has to be settled eventually, but at what cost?
The adage ‘only spend what you can afford’ is unfortunately being ignored.
Ian Macgowan, Ceduna
Streakers no show
Dear editor,
From the Streakers of Poetry Bay to the people of Ceduna and Thevenard, we want to offer our apologies for not appearing at the Thevenard Hotel on Saturday night, November 15, with our latest show A Word in the Hand.
We performed successfully at Streaky Bay the previous night and were well ready for a repeat in your community.
We hope there may be another opportunity in the future.
For inquiries, please contact Nick Carroll on 0406 575 174.
Nick, Scott and Jesse
On the wrong side
Dear editor,
Having failed to convince the public about the virtues of public funding of nuclear power stations, the Coalition have settled on a new policy purportedly addressing energy costs by curbing emissions reduction which primarily serves the interests of major donors and internal unity.
When failure to reduce emissions urgently invites catastrophe climate change you cannot credibly ignore the costs of inaction, when arguing a case based on cost.
Furthermore, power prices have gone up, but a key factor is the burgeoning cost of generating electricity using fuels favoured by the Coalition while experts advise the least cost path involves renewables.
The Coalition’s announcement on net zero amounts to a rejection of wind and solar energy, which flies in the face of facts.
Jim Allen, Panorama