It is welcome news that Albanese and Chalmers are prepared to cross swords with the banks over surcharges paid by customers using debit cards and ban this imposition (“Ban on debit card surcharges in government’s sights”, October 15). The banks are charging us to use our own money! But why wait until 2026? Stop pussyfooting around, prime minister, and commit to its implementation now. John Nelson, Mudgee
So the government is considering changing the rules regarding debit card transaction charges. Just get on with it, as it’s the same as cash and should not be penalised. Another bank rip-off and a government afraid to take on the big banks. Show some mettle, prime minister, and support those spending their own savings. Denis Suttling, Newport Beach
Here’s the rub. Debits appear immediately to your account. However, when there are credits, such as interest from a term deposit over a weekend, they do not appear until Monday. So, banks are depositing the funds on the short-term money market for two days at the expense of the client, with no additional interest credited. Apparently, computers only work Monday to Friday. Cash is certainly king. This is one of only a number of negatives of the increasing push for online transactions by banks. Bruce Clydsdale, Bathurst
Time for a rethink? Credit: iStock
Why stop at debit cards when you can also slap customers with a surcharge? The hospitality trade is particularly guilty of this. When you pay a restaurant bill and the poor, untrained staff member sheepishly says “there is a 1.75% charge for using your card, is that okay?” and you reply “No, it isn’t”, they then usually reply “Oh, it’s not us sir, it’s the banks.” Well no, it is you – or more correctly the business owner – who, in my opinion, is double-dipping. Any bank charges incurred by business are fully tax-deductible, but then they also try to redeem it at point of sale as well. To my knowledge, we are the only country that does it (even at airport duty free – welcome to Australia), and it needs to stop. Tony Bennett, Broke
Bored game
Wow, the Institute of Public Affairs is really kicking educational goals with a First Fleet board game (CBD, October 15). There are three cards referencing Indigenous Australians, straight from a history that is no longer taught nor celebrated. Students now recognise that the First Fleet brought invaders and that our Indigenous history is rich and complex. Thanks, but no thanks. Lisa Williams, Dulwich Hill
Republic 2.0
Your correspondent (Letters, October 15) makes an excellent point – republics can produce despots. When I hear calls for a republic, I’m reminded of Donald Trump’s presidential term, which nearly didn’t end, and I fear the forthcoming US election, with a likely Trump win. Regarding Australia, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, let’s strengthen our existing system by enforcing the introduction of truth in political advertising, banning large political donations, locking lobbyists out of Parliament House, and protecting whistleblowers. Anne Matheson, Gordon
Your dictator du jour?Credit: AP
Your correspondent expresses his disdain for republics such as France, the USA, Russia and others, where a powerful president has close to (or potentially) autocratic powers. However, he fails to note that there are many successful and stable republics, including Germany, Finland and the Republic of Ireland, where the president has little or no involvement in the day-to-day operation of the government. This type of president has a function much like the British monarch: to act as ceremonial figurehead for the nation and “umpire” in the case of settling a possible conflict in the parliament, such as determining who should form the new government after an inconclusive election. Many republicans in Australia – including me – favour this type of republic, where effectively the current role of governor-general, minus obeisance to a foreign monarch, would be transferred to an Australian president. Martyn Yeomans, Sapphire Beach
Where did your correspondent get the idea that an Australian republic would mean “power remains concentrated in the hands of one individual?” No one is now proposing that model – except perhaps a few leftovers from the mob who pushed it at the last referendum and thereby helped sink that vote. What is proposed is a model by which our current parliamentary system of government remains in place and we just change the way our head of state, a president, not a monarch, gets the gig. That is, we vote for an Australian to do that job. To suggest that anything else is proposed is mischievous. James Mahoney, McKellar (ACT)
I have a suggestion for an Australian-style republic. The duties of our head of state are largely symbolic, so why have one at all? If the prime minister can’t greet foreign leaders or open school fetes, then a nominee of the parliament can do the job. The reserve powers to sack an elected prime mister can be given to the members of a combined senate and House of Reps sitting with a two-thirds majority deciding the case. Simples. John Bailey, Canterbury
Ailing health system
The reaction of the college of GPs to the federal government’s decision to fast-track the registration of foreign doctors (“Foreign doctors given fast-track”, October 15) is not surprising. All professional colleges control the supply of specialists in all disciplines in Australia. Rather than targeting GPs, our most committed medical group, perhaps the government should choose to open medicine to more students and demand higher numbers of Australian-born graduates become specialists across all disciplines. Sorry, that would require the government to control the health system we all fund, but that couldn’t possibly happen in Australia. Brian Barrett, Padstow
Is domestic better than imported?Credit: iStock
No doubt the doctor’s trade union will demand the Coalition stop the government allowing those obviously poorly trained ones from Ireland, UK and NZ to enter and cause medical mayhem. But, of course they could never be accused of acting like one of those horrible trade unions, could they? It is long last time that these antiquated “colleges” and their protection rackets were bypassed. Tony Sullivan, Adamstown Heights
They might have different accents, but those Kiwis, Irish and Poms speak the same language and are trained in the first-world healthcare as medical doctors. These are enough qualifications to bypass the expensive process of Australian registration and be recognised immediately upon arrival. AMA should facilitate the process to expedite, rather than coming up with lame excuses to delay the desperately needed GPs. Imagine the desperation of GPs from the non-English-speaking countries wanting their qualifications recognised in Australia. They drive taxis rather than using their skills as doctors, which are in short supply in Australia due to convoluted, complex and over-the-top requirements to pass exams. Mukul Desai, Hunters Hill
Will overseas GPs be familiar with Australian prescribing regulations? Prescribing of various drugs differs from country to country (as does what is available over the counter at pharmacies). Foreign practitioners should at least have to undergo a course covering this area before being registered to practice in Australia. Stephanie Edwards, Leichhardt
How about a ‘fair go’ for everyone?
Your correspondent (Letters, October 15) says that the Voice would have given Indigenous people “greater rights” than other Australians. Repeating Peter Dutton’s and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s mantra once again demonstrates total ignorance of the Australian Constitution, especially the clause emanating from the 1967 referendum which gave Indigenous people constitutional recognition. This clause also gave the Commonwealth government total control over the lives of the original people of this land. No other group of Australians is singled out in this way. The Commonwealth now has the power to incarcerate Indigenous people in disproportionate numbers, resulting in greater numbers dying in custody; power to take children from their families and mob; and power to intervene in the life of their communities. The list goes on and the gap in their welfare continues to widen. The Voice would have given Indigenous people the ability to advise the Commonwealth on how that power should be used to benefit, not harm, them. The legislated route failed when the Howard government disbanded the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Constitutional enshrinement is now the only way to ensure Indigenous people have a permanent and effective say regarding their future. Elizabeth Elenius, Pyrmont
Remember when?
Rather than continuing to cultivate an unnecessary distinction between the Indigenous and the non-Indigenous, with the former being perceived as relatively disadvantaged and deserving of some form of special treatment, those with influence in society and who genuinely want to help Indigenous people would do better to advocate for “fair go” reform of our system of taxes, subsidies and provision of assistance and public goods. It is untenable and intolerable lowly paid workers, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, struggling to pay for a roof over their heads and to feed themselves and their families, should be forced by our parliaments to pay taxes to allow highly paid workers, wealthy home owners, investors and superannuants to accumulate subsidised wealth and to live profligate lifestyles. If we were to have “fair go” policies, the relative disadvantage of the Indigenous would disappear. Leadership in this country is pathetic, self-serving, sadly too reflective of us who elect our parliaments. Ross Drynan, Lindfield
I continue to hear the claim the Voice would have given Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders extra rights over “ordinary Australians”. The Voice would have had no additional power as the government could legally ignore it. The Voice would have just been another lobby group for a parliament house swarming with corporate lobbyists talking to anyone who will listen, something beyond the rights of ordinary people. They should ask why foreign corporations have more rights to approach lawmakers than voters instead of decrying the supposed special treatment of Indigenous people. Graeme Finn, Earlwood
I voted Yes, I marched the march, but I always thought the ambitions and expectations of how the Voice could improve Indigenous Australians’ lives were grossly overstated. I believed only in the principle of the thing. It was always my concern Indigenous Australians would ultimately be disappointed either way. Garry Feeney, Kingsgrove
Defiantly angry with those who voted No, I still wear my Yes T-shirts to stir conversation. That causes discomfort in some people who got it wrong because the evil Dutton political campaign swayed their uncertainty and lack of understanding. I remain optimistic about progress towards truth, treaty and Voice if leadership and the media educate us better. Compassion and fairness are Australian values. Frederika Steen, Chapel Hill (Qld)
Respect the King
The ill-mannered snubbing of King Charles and Queen Camilla by state premiers not attending a formal reception in Canberra for our royal guests is disrespectful and hypocritical (“Premiers’ royal tour no-show a childish stunt”, October 15). I guarantee these politicians wouldn’t hesitate to take the governor-general or governor role if offered the role post-politics. Riley Brown, Bondi Beach
One should be polite to visitorsCredit: Getty Images
The government still has a few days to clarify any discrepancy about the official title of King Charles in Australia before His Majesty arrives. There is also time to rework the previous monarch’s personal standard for Australia (replacing the E for Elizabeth with C for Charles). Beautifully depicting the six state badges, the federation star and the centrality of the Crown, this rarest of all Australian flags is flown only by the monarch and only when personally present. Let’s not miss the opportunity. David D’Lima, Sturt (SA)
Lost in space
We may be amazed at the clever technology used to send and bring home rockets, boosters and modules from outer space (“SpaceX feat brings Mars closer”, October 15). However, man will no more live in colonies on Mars or the moon than he will live in glass bubbles at the bottom of our oceans. The entire endeavour is a colossal waste of money and natural resources that would be better spent on solving the threat to our planet from polluting the atmosphere and the burden of our species being in such plague proportions we are consuming Earth’s resources faster than they can be replenished. Matt Kaarma, North Nowra
Joining the dots. Why not send Elon Musk’s Tesla robots (“Robot ’wants to be more human‴, October 15) to Mars on Musk’s SpaceX expedition? That would make them think again. Pasquale Vartuli, Wahroonga
Balanced interests
I sincerely hope those “outraged” by the Prime Minister’s house purchase (“Anthony Albanese buys $4.3 million ‘clifftop perfection’ property”, smh.com.au, October 15) are just as incensed by Peter Dutton and his family’s reported $300 million in assets. Jennifer McKay, Ashbury
Mystery writer
The race is on to discover the identity of the Pudney brothers’ grandma (Letters, October 14). My guess is letter writers Janice Creenaune or Joan Brown. Ian Falconer, Turramurra
- 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.