I am not an economist so I am out of my depth here. So you'll have to forgive my ignorance and educate me. Clearly this is something you know a bit about. Don't you count gas a fossil fuel? I would.
Clearly I am confused where this value is coming from and perhaps it's not export.
Anyway fossil fuels (including gas) are a big part of our economy and we should have a path to phase them out if we are going to reduce our environmental impact.
$38 000 000 000 seems like a lot income to start taking out of the equation.
I feel my point is, if we're going to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels we need to recreate value somewhere else in order maintain our economy and ultimately our standard of living. So how do we do that and what might that look like?
We have a huge part of our economy depending on fossil fuels (gas). A short sighted solution but that's where we are. How do we grow out of this?
If WA starts throttling the gas production we have to be looking to other things of global value to sell.
If you were gatekeeper, how would you discriminate?
To clarify when I say contributing that's more just dollars. It could be anything that lifts us up.
Can't speak for NZ. In Australia because we have healthcare and other benefits, the fear is that permitting non-working immigrants to become citizens will mean they are a net burden on the economy. Can't let everyone in. Got to draw the line somewhere. It sucks for those that don't pass the bar but if I were gatekeeping immigration I'd choose the subset most likely to make the country better; net contributors. Let me just say I'm not sure what our official policy is. I am just providing an opinion. I guess autism would be a red flag to an immigration official. If someone was autistic and contributing to the nation I personally wouldn't have an issue. You can come hang.