Like many conservatives, Nick Minchin focuses far more on freedom from rather than freedom to (Letters, August 27). The compulsion to vote has served us well for more than a century and is the best way for the voices of all the people – even mute ones – to be heard one way or another. What could be more democratic than that? As for being objectionable, it is little to demand that we yield a paltry hour or so every few years to do what so many suffered and died for in wars so that we even could. Resenting such a small obligation of thanks for those sacrifices is churlish indifference and base ingratitude. And turning our backs on it would be the real “blight on our democracy”. Adrian Connelly, Springwood
Voters at a polling booth at Fitzroy North Primary School.Credit: Justin McManus
The issue of everyone voting is vital to an honest democracy. With freedom as in a democracy comes responsibility. One way to exercise this is by voting, so if that means everyone has to, then we must. Men and women in Western democracies have fought, died and been imprisoned to gain universal suffrage. We are very fortunate that we all have the chance to vote. There are so many countries where this opportunity is denied or is manipulated to such an extent that it is worthless. Many are still fighting and giving their lives to achieve what we have. It is invaluable and we must not throw away such a wonderful opportunity because it is inconvenient to bother to vote.
The model we have is the best that has been achieved through democratic processes. Let us remember how important it is to use your vote for the good of the country. That is the responsibility of citizenship and democratic freedom.
Augusta Monro, Dural
The ancient Athenians who created the admirable practice of democracy were well aware of the need for those privileged with the right to vote to participate in debates and the decision-making process. A quorum of 6000 was required for an assembly to ensure that any decision would be representative of the opinion and interests of the wider community. Those shirking their electoral responsibilities were literally rounded up by men wielding cloth whips dipped in red paint as a form of public shaming. Too many people have fought and died for the right to have a vote for us to treat it as an inconvenience instead of as the foundation of a fairer and just society. Jennifer McKay, Ashbury
Minchin must surely be aware that our so-called “compulsory voting” law only compels Australians to participate in the election process by fronting up. There is nothing illegal about leaving your ballot paper blank or even scrawling obscenities all over it, and in doing that you have effectively exercised your inalienable right not to cast a (valid) vote. Nobody ever inspects your ballot paper before you poke it into the slot, nor should they.
Minchin’s support for repeal of the current law is ill-advised. He should know that the result of Britain’s 2016 Brexit referendum, widely described as a 52-48 win for the Leave campaign, took no account of the 13 million registered voters who didn’t vote, nor several million others who were entitled to vote but didn’t even bother to register. In the end, arguably the worst decision by the people of any democracy on the planet since World War II was inflicted on the UK by something like 37 per cent of those entitled to vote. Please spare Australia from that kind of outcome. Steve Cornelius, Brookvale
In retirement, Nick Minchin voices his strong opposition to Australia’s compulsory voting system, which elected him to the Australian Senate. I don’t remember Minchin espousing this view as part of his election campaigning. Then, post-parliamentary career, he accepts the position of Australian consul-general in New York, representing the Australian government (which has this same compulsory voting system with which he disagrees). If Minchin viewed compulsory voting as such a bad system, how could he, in good faith, accept the perks of office it afforded him? Warren Marks, Hill Top
Minchin describes compulsory voting as a “blight on our democracy”. However, removing compulsory voting would push our politics to the extremes. When voting is voluntary, political parties must motivate voters to get out to vote. It is too easy, then, to appeal to our lesser angels: fear, anger, prejudice, ignorance. Compulsory voting ensures our politicians must appeal to the middle. The increasing shift of the Coalition to a culture-war mentality would be in sync with Minchin’s disdain for compulsory voting. Voting is not just a right but a responsibility. Neil Ormerod, Kingsgrove
Minchin claims “thousands” of Australians are hunted down and fined by the AEC after each election. Well, Nick, many thousands of motorists are fined each year for not wearing seat belts, or using their mobile phones while driving. It’s one of many social compacts that are implicitly accepted as the price of living (and driving) in a stable democracy where sometimes the overarching interests of society as a whole trump personal “freedoms”. As George Brandis correctly explained, there is actually no obligation to cast a valid vote – one has simply to attend the voting place on or before an election and have your name checked off the electoral roll. At the very least, such an obligation compels every adult to consider whether they wish to actively participate in the democratic process of this nation. If not – that is, by not casting a valid vote – then that is their democratic right.
Martyn Yeomans, Sapphire Beach
Australia’s compulsory voting system is not all it’s cracked up to be. In Saturday’s NT election there were 153,248 names on the electoral role. Only 88,396 voted. That is a turnout rate of 57.68 per cent. Furthermore, the informal vote was 2541, which is almost 3 per cent of total voters cast. Riley Brown, Bondi Beach
The renewed commentary about Australia’s electoral system, spurred by the interesting article from Brandis, is a reminder that the next federal election is (already) no more than nine months away.
Therein lies a fundamental failing of governments in Canberra to achieve effective legislative agendas – the cycle of federal terms is too short at three years. It is time for the introduction of fixed four-year terms for the House of Representatives. Fixed terms have proven effective at state level in several Australian jurisdictions and, whatever the other failings of the US democracy, the system of four-year fixed terms in Washington gives certainty and continuity to the system of government there. Fixed terms are the norm in many Western democracies.
No government, from either sector of the political arena, can be certain of an effective legislative process when hamstrung by narrow time frames and focused on re-election prospects rather than providing good government. Brian Kidd, Mt. Waverley (Vic)
Reality check
It is hard to know how to express my frustration at the anti-science nonsense pervading this article (“The anti-wind farm groups pushing the nuclear option to rural Australia”, August 27). The Centre for Independent Studies’ Aidan Morrison admits his ignorance of climate science but prefers to listen to “those in public spaces”, in other words politicians and shock jocks who have little idea of what they are talking about. Then we have the former chief of Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Adrian Paterson, spouting the scientifically ignorant description of climate change as “an irrational fear of a trace gas”. Paterson, who should know better, would not say the same about a trace dose of, say, polonium. Finally, we have the proponents of nuclear power seemingly denying the reality that massively expensive nuclear power will not happen for at least 15 years, while at the same time making ridiculous claims about the damage wind and solar is doing and will do to the environment. Renewables are here and now, nuclear is just a Dutton smokescreen. Ross Hudson, Mount Martha (Vic)
wind farm Credit: Eamon Gallagher
Misguided assumption
What hope do aspiring academics have of studying at one of the country’s more prestigious universities when they need to compete for places with such a high proportion of cashed-up foreign students? (“Sydney University accused of ‘gold plating’ campus with foreign enrolments around 50 per cent”, August 27).
The proposed cap on such enrolments as part of a broader immigration mix may be beneficial to redress this imbalance. But an underlying concern remains: for too long, and especially in a post-pandemic world, tertiary education has suffered under a misguided assumption that the “market” will provide whatever these institutions need.
Perhaps it is time the government further loosened the public purse to slow the drift towards financial autonomy for our tertiary institutions. Dare we call it a return to the good old days when universities could teach and research without the overriding bane of financial hunger driving the decision-making? Bradley Wynne, Croydon
Stinking thinking
Like its namesake – the diesel fuel – Amplify stinks from day one (“Taking on the algorithm? These high-profile Australians aren’t dreamin’”, August 27). How can they be serious when they appoint a board member totally enmeshed in the gambling industry, the TabCorp chief executive, when one of their founding concerns is gambling reform? It’s either astroturfing, or stupidity on a grand scale. Frank Formby, Austinmer
Dutton would divide us as PM
I must agree with Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ characterisation of Peter Dutton (“Dutton most divisive leader in the modern era: Chalmers”, August 27). Dutton deliberately seeks to divide our nation along racial lines. Dutton walked out on the apology to the stolen generations, he opposed the Voice referendum and argued that “white” South African farmers should have priority in Australia’s migration policy. Dutton’s racism is - like Donald Trump’s - aimed at setting people against one another. America was and still is ill-served by Trump’s racist dog-whistling and Australia will be ill-served by Dutton if the electorate gives him the opportunity to further divide us. Michael Davis, Balmain East
This week’s “other” Credit: Cathy Wilcox
Peter Dutton has taken every opportunity since Labor won the last election to stir nascent racism and xenophobia in our society. Then there is the Voice referendum. Dutton’s behaviour in the lead up to the vote encouraged Australians to fear reconciliation and openly express racist views. Now he’s targeting Palestinians fleeing genocide in Gaza. If we don’t call Dutton’s divisiveness out, we’ll end up just like the US: disunited. Marilyn Lebeter, Smiths Creek
After firmly putting our Indigenous people back in their place with a 60 per cent No vote in the referendum, we are now taking a stick to Gazans fleeing from their ruined lives and seeking asylum in Australia. Peter Dutton is beating the drum of division by once again using fear as a drumstick. Australia’s reputation as a place of asylum for those fleeing persecution and violence has been under a cloud since the Tampa incident and this latest Coalition policy has proven a winner with Australians, it would seem. Poor fella my country. Christine Tiley, Albany Creek (Qld)
All shook up
The map showing Australia’s active fault lines would surprise most Australians (“Coalition pledges to ditch nuclear sites if earthquake zones are declared unsafe”, August 27). The fault lines are located where most of us live, along the coast, and this is where the Coalition’s reactors would need to be. According to the Australian Climate Service, earthquakes such as the destructive Newcastle earthquake (magnitude 5) in 1989, occur every one to two years. Larger earthquakes (magnitude 6 or more) are less frequent but still occur every ten years on average. As well as the cost of its nuclear proposal, the Coalition must also come up with the risk of a major incident, including meltdowns from failure of cooling systems. Ray Peck, Hawthorn (Vic)
Good moves
Neo-liberalism a bad thing (Letters, August 27)! Apparently Colin Hesse never lived in the Menzian era of high personal taxes, tariffs on imports (many of which we didn’t make), no competition between banks and price control on many consumer goods. Yet it was the removal of these restrictions and much more that enabled the Australian economy to weather the many global economic crises over the last 35 years. The only failure that I can see is the assumption by both major parties that the private sector is more effective than the public sector, ignoring the fact that the private sector will provide advice that politicians want to hear whereas the public sector was created to provide frank and fearless advice. Rodney Crute, Hunters Hill
Employer entitlement
I’m stunned at the sense of entitlement employers have towards their employees’ unpaid time (“Workers will game disconnect law”, August 27). From Natasha Hawker’s totally unfounded claim that employees will game the new law to fears that urgent work will not be done and the sky will fall if workers aren’t continually available, no one seems to believe that the working day should have reasonable limits set on it. Why did unions fight for an eight-hour day if employers can override this agreement whenever they feel like it? It’s pretty shocking that the only way of getting employers to leave staff alone in their own time is to introduce legislation to stop them. And there’s never any suggestion that employees will be paid for this extra time, just the assumption that employers can steal it whenever they think it’s necessary. The days of slavery are long gone and it’s about time employers caught up. If they want extra hours’ work, they should be prepared to pay for them or employ additional staff. Merona Martin, Meroo Meadow
Hear no evil.Credit: Cathy Wilcox
Having had a working life of more than 50 years, including working in emergency management, I have noticed that those organisations which plan their work and adequately resource that work have little or no requirement to contract workers out of hours. I have also noticed that organisations which do not adequately plan for the work that needs to be undertaken, habitually send employees on guilt trips or provide threats of dismissal if they do not respond to out of hours calls or undertake, often unpaid, overtime. The laws will make no difference to well-run organisations. For not so well run organisations it may be time for a little introspection. If the business cannot be run profitably without the need to call staff out of hours the problem is not the new laws. Rob Siebert, Skennars Head
Natasha Hawker seems to be very disturbed about the divisive nature of the “right to disconnect law” which has just come into effect. She exclaims that the most disturbing part is yet to come eg “employees might agitate to cease the practice of unpaid overtime!” She is partially right, it is disturbing to think that some employers are still not paying for overtime and use implied threats (no promotion or even dismissal) to blackmail vulnerable employees to continue to work without proper pay. It is not surprising to see that Hawker, the managing director of a company , is more concerned that the new law will disadvantage employers, than she is that it will finally outlaw a disgraceful practice that has discriminated against and disadvantaged many employees for so long. Paul Gannon, Coopers Shoot
Insurance worries
As if inflation and the cost of housing weren’t enough to contend with, many Australians are now being hit with a substantial rise in insurance costs (“Changes to climate lead to fears over insurance”, August 27). One of the biggest drivers of rising premiums is climate breakdown, causing an increase in the frequency and intensity of bushfires and floods. Coastal properties face increasing threats from storm surges and coastal erosion, not covered in most policies. In future, sea level rises from melting glaciers and ice-sheets will have a growing impact on coastal infrastructure. But our worries are just the tip of the iceberg. Communities in the Pacific region have already had their very livelihoods threatened by the impacts of climate change. The nation of Tuvalu is literally drowning as rising sea levels threaten to cover most of its land within fifty years, unless drastic action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When will we sit up and take notice? Anne O’Hara, Wanniassa (ACT)
Increasing annual house insurance premiums by 30 per cent plus will increase the numbers of uninsured or underinsured. Looking at our latest renewal proposal I noted that it includes three state and federal taxes: FSL/ESL, GST, and stamp duty. The combined amount of these three taxes accounts for over one-third of the total amount payable. If governments wanted to ease the burden of increasing premiums they could look at limiting increases to these taxes to reflect a capped rate of inflation. Ross McLean, Annandale
Fond memories
My shortest letter “Why?” was published on September 6, 2004. Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook
I wouldn’t waste my precious quota on a letter so short it had nothing to say. Meredith Williams, Baulkham Hills
I once wrote a short letter to the Herald. A friend said; “that’s not a letter”. Vicky Marquis, Glebe
- To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
- The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.