Commenting on the story: Deputy PM blasts “greenies’ ravings” linking bushfires to climate change
The trouble with the National Party is that they seem to have their heads permanently buried in the sand over climate change.
Our little-known Deputy PM appears incapable of having anything sensible to contribute.
Far more people are concerned about climate change and bushfires than live in the inner city (find ‘ideological scapegoats’ in pull down menu).
Major science agencies and bushfire experts are among those talking about a link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and increased bushfire risk.
Astonishingly but not surprisingly, another emergency is yet another opportunity for finger-pointing distractions and cynical disregard for the public interest and the truth. – Jim Allen
Bushfires and climate change are two distinct but related issues.
The hysterical response by the Morrison government to the linking of the current bushfires to their history of failure to act on climate change only serves to highlight the extent of their culpability.
Despite the efforts of then Senator Hill, Australia chose to do nothing in response to the 1992 climate change conference.
Could action then have stopped these bushfires? Of course not, but there is a great deal that could have been done to mitigate the severity of their impact.
So why are they in denial? To admit that climate change is a contributing factor would imply that the government needs to stump up with a lot more than just prayers and that is just a bridge too far. – John Töns
The Deputy PM is in denial.
We have a country prone to bushfires and a changing climate – i.e. climate change that all the experts tell us will extend the bushfire season and ferocity – and yet the Deputy PM puts his head in the sand.
He will still get his arse burned. – Patrick O’Sullivan
Regarding Emergency Services Minister David Littleproud’s opinion that the climate change debate should wait: “Let’s have those conversations in the cold, hard light of day after the event.”
It’s been the cold, hard light of day for twenty years or more.
The Liberal governments in particular, but the ALP cannot cry innocent either, have systematically aided and abetted the destruction of the environment of Australia, whilst denying that is what they are doing.
They continue to mock those who point out to them what they apparently can’t see right in front of their faces.
They have refused these conversations for twenty years. What’s different now? Not much.
It’s still not time to have the conversation, apparently. – Cathy Chua
Commenting on the story: REVEALED: Lucas’s land tax compo fund
The more recent iterations of the Government’s proposed land tax changes are all steps in the right direction.
By that I mean bringing South Australia’s radical outlier status closer in line with land tax regimes that apply across the rest of the country.
Our current land tax regime imposes rates of land tax many fold that of other states – and we wonder that the only investment we get is that which is heavily subsidised by the State. Unless you’re an administrator in the USSR that is unviable in the longer run.
So whilst aggregation may be an (necessary) evil, the real problem is with the rates and the thresholds at which they apply.
Top rates of 2.4% and 2.0% whilst not yet at the point of giving the State the competitive advantage it needs, are at least heading in the right direction.
Thresholds for the top rate with a 1 in front of them are not.
To become competitive with the rest of the country, we need top thresholds with at least a 5 in front of them.
In my view, offering compensation for those affected by land tax changes is an admission of policy failure.
If we’re contemplating compensation we should preferably have a closer look at the broader policy changes and adjust them to more broadly effect a fair outcome and avoid the temptation of buying votes through compensation measures. – John Wyk
Want to comment?
Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.
We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.
InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.
We value local independent journalism. We hope you do too.
InDaily provides valuable, local independent journalism in South Australia. As a news organisation it offers an alternative to The Advertiser, a different voice and a closer look at what is happening in our city and state for free. Any contribution to help fund our work is appreciated. Please click below to become an InDaily supporter.