Letters: LNP faces anger over preference deal with Clive Palmer

Today readers have their say on the LNP’s preference deal with Clive Palmer, who should fund fund child care and awarding race prizes based on gender.

Clive Palmer is swapping preferences with the LNP. Picture: Alix Sweeney

MICHAEL Ewens (Letters, Apr 27) says he will not vote Liberal because of the preference deal with Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party.

I’m not sure who approached whom, but I am sure that if the Liberals had refused to deal with Palmer, his response would most likely have been, “Fine, I’ll direct all my preferences to Labor”. Is that what Ewens wants?

Palmer may not be top of my Christmas card list, but I would rather have him as a friend than as an enemy.

Finally, it seems that Labor is free to do deals with whomever it likes, but if the Liberals do so, they are castigated and vilified.

Peter J. Pressdee, Bellbowrie

IT IS obvious to me that the Morrison Government could not give a stuff about the workers sacked by Clive Palmer at his nickel refinery in north Queensland, and who are owed upwards of $70 million in entitlements.

Yet it blatantly claims the LNP desperately wants their vote.

Labor leader Bill Shorten, on the other hand, has indicated that Labor would not entertain any discussions with Palmer on anything until he has paid up.

Les Bryant, Durack

IF LABOR can rely on Greens preferences and those of candidates supported by GetUp! to help win the election, the LNP is no worse by enlisting Clive Palmer’s party to boost its chances.

Frances Bensted, Carindale

PREFERENCES would not be of such significance in our voting system and cause such unjust and unfair outcomes, if their electoral value was reduced to half that of a primary vote.

To add a preferential unit of equivalent value to that of the primary vote does not reflect the voter’s prime intention of selecting one candidate as the only outcome.

Preferences are simply throwaway second thoughts for most voters, so why should they determine an outcome equivalent to that of a primary selection?

There are countless occasions where outcomes have been unfairly determined under the present system of preferential equivalency in voting.

Reducing the value of the preferential vote to one half would result in fairer outcomes, reduce costly recounts, simplify the process and put value back into the primary vote which, under the current voting system, has been unfairly degraded.

Raymond W. Clarke, Zillmere

***********

Child care is essential for improving educational standards.

CHILD CARE WORTH FUNDING BY TAXPAYERS

COLUMNIST Renee Viellaris (C-M, Apr 29) shows confused logic in criticising Labor’s election promise to drastically reduce childcare costs while paying childcare workers a fair wage.

Experts tell us that early childhood education is essential for Australia to improve its overall educational standards to world best, requiring childcare workers with higher qualifications than mere nose wiping” and producing finger painting for adults to admire.

Historically, child care has been run on the cheap by paying females a rather small income that supplements the household finances, rather than a full income based on improved community standards requiring parity with equivalent jobs that pay an independent living wage.

Childcare centres should not be expected to run at a loss, and it is counter to good business practice to imply that childcare bosses should have to “chip in” to fund pay rises for their staff.

The only way this can be achieved while keeping child care affordable is for taxpayers to help foot the bill. It’s a price well worth paying.

Donald Maclean, Fig Tree Pocket

PRIVATE and public education systems operate side by side at primary, secondary, vocational and tertiary levels.

Why not at early learning/childcare level?

The private sector has a monopoly over the childcare market and that’s not right. It’s time public child care was introduced to every state school campus.

The advantages for young children and their parents would be huge, with no fees and children integrated into the education system rather than in stand-alone centres whose fees are largely determined by high rents and low wages.

Widespread fraud would be curtailed and mothers would no longer experience forfeiting four years salary to childcare fees. That’s obscene.

The current funding will never reduce fees. It’s a treadmill effect, not a progressive solution. It’s a waste of taxpayers’ money and it simply pays the increasing rent.

The original Whitlam Childcare Act was revolutionary.

Universal child care was promised by the ALP, but the fatal flaw was not integrating childcare centres with primary schools.

Time to rectify that costly mistake.

Kay Cogan, Spring Hill

***********

NO PRIZE FOR GENDER

IT BEATS me why the woman who was the first female across the line

in the QUT Classic fun run is belly-aching about not receiving a cash prize (C-M, Apr 29).

Was the race advertised as having a prize for the first male and first female across the line?

Apparently not, because the first three people across the line were the only ones to receive a prize and were males.

It seems she thought she was in a race where every participant wins a prize.

That only happens in primary school. In the real world, life isn’t like that.

Phil Greenhill, Bellbird Park

IF PRIZE money is for first, second and third in a race it would be sexist to hand out prizes on the basis of gender.

Rod Watson, Surfers Paradise

***********

Join the conversation. Send your letters to couriermail.com.au/letters or email to [e-mail]