First step for the Libs? Embrace modern Australia
ELECTION FALLOUT
Peter Dutton lost his seat of Dickson comfortably, in what was a total repudiation of him, his party and its policies (or lack thereof). Struggling in the campaign, Dutton resorted to culture wars over Welcome to Country. Dutton thrived on the politics of grievance and the stoking fear and division. The vast majority of us have said 'this is not who we are, nor who we want to be'.
The Liberal Party must now decide how far to the right they are prepared to move to rebuild. Gina Rinehart wants them to go further (' Rinehart blames 'left media' for Coalition wipeout, claims voters 'very short on understanding',' 5/5). Given the Liberal Party's links to the likes of right-wing lobby group Advance, their willingness to use members of the patriarchal and misogynistic Exclusive Brethren in the election campaign, and that three potential leadership contenders – Angus Taylor, Andrew Hastie and Dan Tehan – attended the conference for the climate change denying Alliance for Responsible Citizenship in London in 2023, one must wonder.
Rod Eldridge, Derrinallum
Contemporary women
Charlotte Mortlock is correct in being frustrated that her own party fails to take her advice as a woman seriously (' The Liberal Party is still beholden to a small cohort of angry men. Women have had enough ', 6/5). Sadly, the very Anglo-centric nature of women selected in parliament, including teal candidates, also don't reflect the small business owners in my area who come from educated multicultural backgrounds. These women don't like the oft-cited 'pub test' political analogy – they don't go to pubs as it's not part of their culture and sadly some feel uncomfortable in that blokey environment. Genuine reform means choosing women from diverse backgrounds who have different life experiences and seeing more nuanced perspectives on what it means being a modern day Australian woman.
Mel Smith, Brighton
An existential crisis
Beyond questions of leadership and policy, the Liberal Party must look at its basic principles and consider how closely they reflect modern Australia. That might reveal that the Liberals really do face an existential crisis. A political party based on principles including individualism, limited government and low taxation seems to be at odds with a country that pressures its government to do more and more for its citizens.
This creates a huge problem for true liberals, because by definition, they do not want to interfere in people's lives. They prefer a light touch government that leaves people free to live as they wish, provided they do not harm others. But that doesn't match modern, progressive Australia that seems to be constantly demanding the government address an ever expanding list of problems and issues. The Liberal Party can move to the moderate centre, but they will reach a limit beyond which they cannot go and still call themselves liberals.
Rod Wise, Surrey Hills
Building a coherent story
Peter Hartcher's insightful analysis (' Election delivers hard lessons for the Libs. But they can't say they weren't warned ', 6/5) of the Liberal rout in Saturday's election sums up the major shortcomings of the Liberal Party, but does not address their fundamental problem. To be a party electable, voters want a coherent story and direction. Making off the cuff policy statements a la working from home and continually being negative does not inspire confidence. Peter Dutton raged about the cost of living and housing crisis but offered no well-planned solutions.
The Liberal Party could well follow Labor's example in holding annual conferences where policies are debated under the umbrella of a guiding philosophy that outlines the party's guiding principles. Federal elections should be a competition between clear policies and ideas, not a slanging match between personalities. Until the Liberal Party establish what they stand for, they will remain in the political wilderness.
Graeme Lechte, Pascoe Vale
THE FORUM
Leave it to the politicians
Gina Rinehart still doesn't get it. She is advocating that we continue to embrace Trumpism despite the Coalition's massive loss. She is also blaming the left-wing media. My advice to Rinehart is to leave the politics to the politicians and sit out on her balcony with a cold one and count her money. She is a very fortunate woman.
John Cummings, Anglesea
Pulling the strings
No surprise that Gina Rinehart wants the Liberals to move further right. She sees herself as Australia's Elon Musk, pulling the strings of an Australian Trump-like Liberal Party. She has somehow missed the fact that most Aussies don't like Trump and his ilk.
Marie Nash, Balwyn
Begin again
I completely agree with Gina Rinehart's statement that the Liberal Party should move further to the right. That will hasten the Liberal Party's fall into oblivion. From its ashes new parties and independents will arise, free of lobbyists and vested interests, who are more attuned to the needs of average Australians.
Barry Lizmore, Ocean Grove
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
8 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Australia news LIVE: Burke vows to protect Australians from Middle East tension; Trump to hike tariffs on India amid Russia links
Latest posts Latest posts 6.47am Trump to hike tariffs on India for buying Russian oil By Michael Koziol US President Donald Trump says he will hike tariffs on India from their already-high level of 25 per cent due to the country's ongoing purchases of Russian oil amid the war against Ukraine. In a sign of the strained relations between the two countries, India quickly branded Trump's move 'unjustified and unreasonable', and said it would take all necessary measures to safeguard its economic security. The threat, which has not yet been acted on, underlines Trump's preference for using tariffs for geopolitical leverage, and comes as his deadline looms for commitments from Russia's Vladimir Putin on ending the war, which has now raged for three-and-a-half years. There have been mixed reports about India's intentions over the past week as the US stepped up pressure on the world's most populous nation to back away from its reliance on Russian crude oil, which now accounts for about a third of India's supplies. 6.44am Tesla grants Musk $46 billion stock award Tesla approved an interim stock award worth about $US30 billion ($46 billion) for chief executive officer Elon Musk, a massive payout meant to keep the billionaire's attention on the automaker as a legal fight over a 2018 pay package drags on. The new agreement includes 96 million shares of the automaker that will vest if Musk continues to serve in the top post for another two years, the company said in a regulatory filing. The restricted stock has an exercise price of $US23.34, equal to the price in the prior compensation plan. The move underscores Musk's grip on the company, even as it struggles with falling electric vehicle sales and a slumping stock price. The world's richest person has said he wants a greater stake in Tesla as he reorients it around futuristic pursuits including artificial intelligence and driverless vehicles. 6.39am What's making news today By Daniel Lo Surdo Hello and welcome to the national news live blog. My name is Daniel Lo Surdo, and I'll be helming our live coverage this morning. Here's what is making news today: Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has vowed to protect Australians from the 'tinderbox' of tension stemming from debate about the Middle East, saying he was blocking visas for potentially divisive visitors at an unprecedented rate. In an interview with this masthead, Burke said he 'did not care' if he was accused of stymying debate about controversial issues in favour of protecting social cohesion. US President Donald Trump says he will hike tariffs on India from their already-high level of 25 per cent due to the country's ongoing purchases of Russian oil amid the war against Ukraine. India quickly branded Trump's move, a threat that has not yet been acted on, 'unjustified and unreasonable', and said it would take all necessary measures to safeguard its economic security. The Australian sharemarket is set to grow on Tuesday, after Wall Street recovered much of the sharp losses incurred following Trump's latest tariff announcement last week. Trump has been critical of the US Federal Reserve, which has kept interest rates unchanged amid concerns about the impact of Trump's tariff agenda on prices for American households.
The Age
8 minutes ago
- The Age
Australia news LIVE: Burke vows to protect Australians from Middle East tension; Trump to hike tariffs on India amid Russia links
Latest posts Latest posts 6.47am Trump to hike tariffs on India for buying Russian oil By Michael Koziol US President Donald Trump says he will hike tariffs on India from their already-high level of 25 per cent due to the country's ongoing purchases of Russian oil amid the war against Ukraine. In a sign of the strained relations between the two countries, India quickly branded Trump's move 'unjustified and unreasonable', and said it would take all necessary measures to safeguard its economic security. The threat, which has not yet been acted on, underlines Trump's preference for using tariffs for geopolitical leverage, and comes as his deadline looms for commitments from Russia's Vladimir Putin on ending the war, which has now raged for three-and-a-half years. There have been mixed reports about India's intentions over the past week as the US stepped up pressure on the world's most populous nation to back away from its reliance on Russian crude oil, which now accounts for about a third of India's supplies. 6.44am Tesla grants Musk $46 billion stock award Tesla approved an interim stock award worth about $US30 billion ($46 billion) for chief executive officer Elon Musk, a massive payout meant to keep the billionaire's attention on the automaker as a legal fight over a 2018 pay package drags on. The new agreement includes 96 million shares of the automaker that will vest if Musk continues to serve in the top post for another two years, the company said in a regulatory filing. The restricted stock has an exercise price of $US23.34, equal to the price in the prior compensation plan. The move underscores Musk's grip on the company, even as it struggles with falling electric vehicle sales and a slumping stock price. The world's richest person has said he wants a greater stake in Tesla as he reorients it around futuristic pursuits including artificial intelligence and driverless vehicles. 6.39am What's making news today By Daniel Lo Surdo Hello and welcome to the national news live blog. My name is Daniel Lo Surdo, and I'll be helming our live coverage this morning. Here's what is making news today: Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has vowed to protect Australians from the 'tinderbox' of tension stemming from debate about the Middle East, saying he was blocking visas for potentially divisive visitors at an unprecedented rate. In an interview with this masthead, Burke said he 'did not care' if he was accused of stymying debate about controversial issues in favour of protecting social cohesion. US President Donald Trump says he will hike tariffs on India from their already-high level of 25 per cent due to the country's ongoing purchases of Russian oil amid the war against Ukraine. India quickly branded Trump's move, a threat that has not yet been acted on, 'unjustified and unreasonable', and said it would take all necessary measures to safeguard its economic security. The Australian sharemarket is set to grow on Tuesday, after Wall Street recovered much of the sharp losses incurred following Trump's latest tariff announcement last week. Trump has been critical of the US Federal Reserve, which has kept interest rates unchanged amid concerns about the impact of Trump's tariff agenda on prices for American households.
The Advertiser
38 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
This proposal could improve productivity and incentive to invest. You can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger it
The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort.
