Crikey readers debate the pros and cons

Josephine Vallentine writes: Bernard, your last comment is spot on: “The urgent need for majors to be confined to minority status to force them to embrace better policies.”

Adam Bandt is right: we’ve got to keep Dutton out of the Lodge. Greens and independents will help with that.

Labor doesn’t deserve another term in its own right. It has been so disappointing on so many issues: state capture on steroids with the fossil fuel lobby precluding anything meaningful on the biggest threat to our security, that of the climate crisis, which is directly linked to cost of living (think of poor householders who can’t afford insurance against extreme weather events); blindly agreeing to AUKUS, which has nothing to do with the defence of Australia; and continuing cruelty to asylum seekers, to list just a few of the outstanding failures.

Please encourage journalists to ask questions on these topics rather than worrying about Albo falling off a platform, or whether Dutton would choose to live at Kirribilli. The election is only as interesting as journalists make it by asking probing questions of real importance.

We need transparency and accountability, as Malcolm Turnbull clearly stated at the National Press Club last week. Keeping the report on future security risks to our country [secret] is disgraceful; independents were given a briefing only if they agreed to a gag. Probably because it stated that within two decades there will be hundreds of thousands of climate refugees knocking on our doors… Total lack of preparation for that eventuality.

Catherine writes: If our “doom” is an experienced and practiced government with a cautious hand on the tiller, that suits me. I cannot trust Dutton as far as I could kick him (which I’d rather enjoy, just quietly) nor can I trust the cabal of ultra right-wingers backing him.

I’m also sure that the country desperately needs certainty now, as much as possible. Agility too, but only with clear-headed economic expertise behind it, not wild lurches to appease either Trump or anyone else. All the talk about minority government and voting for independents makes little sense in a world turned upside down.

Charles Pickett: In a way, Dutton is a victim of News Corp, an organisation which has long confused the gestural nonsense of culture wars with presentable government policy. His “success” with a Yes/No referendum only entrenched his victimhood and the consequent policy laziness, tone deafness, etc.

Rod B writes: The scariest part of this article is the suggestion that Andrew “Onward, Christian soldiers!” Hastie may become opposition leader. Can’t they find a sensible, secular, non-military person to lead?

Gregor Manson writes: When I was in Strahan last year this was all over the local rag: the Tasmania government said [salmon farming] employed 6,000 workers, Labor said 600, the Greens said 60… Putting aside the fact I’ve lost several jobs over the years and nobody passed legislation to save me, one might ask how much tax is paid by these three foreign companies. Not much? Like every other multi-national?

Andrew Holliday writes: [Senator Jonathan Duniam] lost me when he claimed 5,000 workers. Norway only has 8,000 — and 70% of the world’s salmon production. Something very wrong if Tasmania is even remotely in that ballpark.

Dr Stephen writes: All our food and crop production has adverse environmental consequences. Rather than closing the industry, trying to work out ways of minimising adverse impacts is the way to go.

Mr J writes: The word count really restricts both “fighters’” ability to address this issue. What is needed is a genuine cost-benefit analysis (preferably not one by KPMG, that stadium report was a shocker!)…

…A cost-benefit analysis that doesn’t claim a ridiculous 5,000 jobs, nor just the 60 related to Macquarie Harbour. One that acknowledges direct employment and partial employment. That also notes more of a move to automation.

…A cost-benefit analysis that examines the tax collected and returned to the community. Hint: effectively zero, about 0.7% of their total income, but with the magic of accountants it’s 8.8% of taxable income. In the seven year period between 2013 and 2020, about $51 million. Note also that Norway’s salmon farms pay 47% on taxable income. There are ongoing changes to taxation, and it is complicated by standard company tax rates, a specific salmon tax and resource rent taxes. But suffice to say their salmon farms seem to pay twice as much in tax in one year than ours have since 2013.

…A cost-benefit analysis that examines the cost of nutrients being dumped that lead to algae blooms, affecting macrofauna communities. The costs of the water oxygenation projects the government is delivering — $21 million. Why aren’t the companies paying this? The cost of antibiotics in the broader fish populations. While focusing on one skate and one harbour is important, the impact on the D’Entrecasteaux Channel is far more significant, as it also impacts recreational fishing and coastal property prices.

…The cost to the government in having to monitor the breaches to basic standards of quality control, and the impacts on macrofauna.

…The inclusion of political donation to both parties from salmon producers.

So far this has been pretty negative, so let’s focus on the benefits highlighted by Jonathan. JOBS! Somewhere between 60 and 5000 — or 0.02% to 1.7% of Tasmanian jobs.