Like most people, I am appalled by the behaviour of Mark Latham (“Time to eradicate Latham from parliament”, July 18). I met him many years ago at an ALP meeting when he visited Kiama. He was totally different from the man we see today. Quiet, respectful, interested in our views, he presented as an intelligent man who shared our aspirations for our country. What happened? He seems to have evolved into the antithesis of that early self; one who is more to be pitied than scorned. Whatever the reason for the change, he quite obviously he did not get the help he needed. Somewhere our system has failed him, resulting now in a deeply flawed man. Nola Tucker, Kiama
Credit: Alan Moir
I think it is time for the NSW Parliament to consider reducing the eight-year term in the Legislative Council to four years. Many voters choose a party rather than an individual politician. If a politician runs as a member of a party, gets elected and then leaves that party to become an independent, I do not think the voters’ original choice is being respected. Furthermore, politicians, like any other employee, should undergo regular performance reviews. Some politicians seem to forget their role as representatives of the citizens of this state, and not our masters. Political, legal and social standards are their KPIs. Eight years is too long a term for voters to wait to exercise our right to remind politicians of this fundamental truth. Carmen Terceiro, Beecroft
Mark Latham is not “dark and dangerous”. Few people take him seriously. Your editorial calling for him to be run out of parliament on the grounds of “he said, she said” allegations and for believing he is “superior” to others is tantamount to an attack on our democracy. If we start changing the rules to run out elected officials because some people don’t like him, we will wind up with a society as divided as the US. Paul Davies, Crows Nest
It’s a measure of how regressively destructive the #MeToo era has become that a serious newspaper would advocate ejecting an elected politician from our democratic parliament on the basis of allegations made by an ex-lover that are yet to invoke any formal charges. The re-normalisation of wowserish curtain-twitching and public hysteria about private and consensual sexual behaviours is almost complete. Jack Robertson, Birchgrove
Not for a second would I defend Mark Latham, but I will call out the Herald for calling anyone a cockroach. This is playground name-calling. Shall we just start calling people pigs, dogs, snakes or vultures? Sue Dellit, Austinmer
Latham’s erratic behaviour has been public knowledge for many years. What does that tell us about the voters who elected him? Judith Lowe, Whale Beach
To think Mark Latham almost became prime minister. Australia is indeed the lucky country. Bernie Bourke, Ourimbah
Walls and bridges
What a miserable lot the Coalition are (“PM hits back at claims of ‘indulgent’ China trip”, July 17). Anthony Albanese is in China attending multiple meetings, mending broken bridges (thanks Scott!) and forging new economic, social and political relationships, and all the Opposition can see is “indulgence” and a waste of taxpayers’ money. You can bet if the PM had not gone, they would be accusing him of missing the opportunity to advance Australia’s status in the Pacific. No wonder they were slammed at the last election. Patrick McGrath, Potts Point
Anthony Albanese and Fu Ni the giant panda.Credit: Dominic Lorrimer
The Coalition’s critical commentary of the PM’s visit to China reeks of hypocrisy. To call out visiting China’s Great Wall and a panda centre as indulgent obviously does not respect the fact that the Chinese government organised these trips. Just as our diplomats would organise a visit to see koalas and the Opera House. Trying to rebuild a relationship that was trashed by the previous government would be a priority for future governments. Lee-Ann Groblicka, Turramurra
It is most disappointing to see Liberals Sussan Ley and Angus Taylor and the right-wing media undermining our country while the PM is in China drumming up trade on our behalf. They are overlooking the fact that Labor prime ministers Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke opened up trade with China, which has contributed in a major way to the wonderful standard of living we enjoy today. Ray Armstrong, Tweed Heads
If nothing else, the current tug-o-war between China and the US over the allegiance of Australia, real or imagined, is doing wonders for our sense of national self-importance (“No free lunch with Xi, as Trump may tell PM,” July 18). I wonder if there’s any chance of it leading to an AuCUS agreement. Meredith Williams, Baulkham Hills
Value judgments
In his article (“Albanese is being pressured to choose Trump or Xi. Why not both?” July 18), Shaun Carney states that China is “an authoritarian state with which we have few shared values”, whereas “there’s America … which is moving quickly away from what we previously believed were a comprehensive set of shared values”. I doubt it is seen that way in the minds of the community at large. The US, historically, has been a great force for good, but it has been a global bully for decades, becoming the most aggressive and violent country in the world. Trumpism is just making abundantly clear what has long been the reality below the surface. Australian politicians for years have been prepared to go along with this charade on the grounds of these supposed shared values, which are never defined. Apart from dragging us into numerous wars, this has meant that our governments have refused to address the major challenges and threats facing Australia, for fear of upsetting our US “friends”. Not least of these are climate change and environmental degradation, where policy since the 1980s has been dictated by US fossil fuel pressure, which continues today. We may have differences with China, but at least it is taking action on these existential threats – which is far more aligned with Australian values as expressed at the last election. Ian Dunlop, Gordon
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and China President Xi Jinping in Beijing.Credit: Dominic Lorrimer
Like him, loathe him or fear him, President Xi Jinping provides a clarity of purpose and intention that his “peers” don’t. I’m not praising him, but we should be grateful for that, as the motives and unpredictability of Putin and Trump and a swath of lesser leaders causing fear and death have us all at peak anxiety worrying about what’s next. If Xi leaves Taiwan alone, history will likely be kind to him, while the rest of the world’s so-called “strongmen” leaders are already doomed to be remembered as egotistical loose cannons, much as many of us adjudge Xi’s predecessor, Chairman Mao. Andrew Cohen, Glebe
Salaried workers slugged hardest
Thank you, Chris Mangan, for questioning the need to pay more tax (Letters, July 16). It was Kerry Packer who memorably said: “I am not so impressed with the way you spend it that I would give you any more than I have to.” I spent more than 20 years of my professional life helping the top-end pay the least amount of tax for which they were liable. The bottom end – the cash economy – does not pay its share because it only accepts cash. It is the middle, the salaried workers, who pay their obligations in full because it is automatically deducted from their salaries. So, middle Australia, do you want to do anything about this? I don’t want a country where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Do you? Helen Wright, Paddington
Correspondent Chris Mangan wrote that 26 million people in Australia were contributing to the tax revenue. The most recent figures, however, for tax returns in 2023/24 consisted of 15.7 million returns. More worrying is that there were 91 people earning more than $1 million who paid no tax at all. The average PAYE taxpayer cannot indulge in these “legal” shenanigans to avoid paying tax. What the government needs to do is crack down on these high-flyers, corporates and multinationals who are leaving the burden for the less wealthy to bear. Australia is the second-highest, after Denmark, in terms of personal income tax as a share of total tax revenue, though as a percentage of GDP, at 27 per cent, it is below the OECD average of 33 per cent. The same writer urges the government to trim its sails. I suggest it rather puts up a spinnaker to catch the breezes that are not being utilised. Michael Bright, Moss Vale
Learned articles in 1985 correctly predicted the massive rise in house prices that would be caused by Labor’s new capital gains tax and the tax-free status of the family home. History is now repeating itself because the easiest recommended escape from Labor’s new super tax is to divert the excess funds into tax-free family homes, further worsening affordability. Labor is creating another dangerous taxation monster that, instead of feeding on the wealthy, will instead cause much unintended harm to the wider community. William S. Lloyd, Denistone
Jobless rate no surprise
Senior economics correspondent Shane Wright thinks the rise in the jobless rate is a shock to markets and the RBA (“Jobs data places the Reserve in the spotlight”, July 18). However, as a regular cyclist on the northern beaches, it is no shock to me. On weekends, the southbound transit lane at Long Reef transforms into a second-hand car yard. It is a real-time barometer of the state of the economy, without the time lag of the ABS, and has been building steadily for months. Richard Wallace, Balgowlah
The unemployment rate rose to 4.1 per cent in June.Credit: Louie Douvis
It’s of hardly any consequence that the RBA has not recently reduced its cash rate further. There’s no evidence that such reductions have any material impact on aggregate spending. If an increase in spending is required, the government must step up. An increase in unemployment benefits financed by an increase in taxes would do the job without any need to borrow. Simple. Mike Bush, Port Macquarie
Misplaced concerns
Given the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism provides that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”, can correspondent Fernanda Trecenti (Letters, July 18), Ed Husic or any of its other detractors please explain how exactly its adoption would prevent legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza, or indeed any legitimate criticism of Israel. This claim makes me wonder if those making it have actually read the definition. Mark Kessel, Caulfield North
Ed Husic’s concerns about the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism are misplaced (“Former minister breaks ranks on antisemitism report”, July 17). The definition does not silence criticism of Israel. It explicitly states “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. Dismissing the IHRA definition as “dangerous” or “heavy-handed” ignores the current reality facing Jewish Australians, who have endured a sharp rise in antisemitic threats and abuse since October 7, 2023. At a time when even Jewish school students are being harassed as well as Jewish institutions attacked, calls to delay or dilute efforts to address antisemitism risk signalling that the safety and concerns of Jewish families are not a priority. Nathalie Samia, Queens Park
Gaza church attack
Israel has repeatedly struck schools, refugee shelters, hospitals and civilian homes, but the Catholic Church strike, sheltering the elderly, mainly women and children, some with disabilities, has to be the last straw (“Israel bombs the Gaza church that late pope called every day”, July 18). Apart from the senseless killing, what makes me so sad is that there is not one world leader game enough to stop this madness. Corrado Tavella, Rosslyn Park (SA)
Catholics attend a mass for those who lost their lives in the Israeli strike on the Holy Family Church in Gaza.Credit: Getty Images
Israel has shelled the only Catholic church in Gaza “accidentally”. Given the rapidly climbing count of unintended civilian hits, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the IDF is the most incompetent military force in history. They have bombed any middle ground into oblivion. Ron Polglaze, Hazelbrook
Biosecurity threat
At what point does the appropriate department admit responsibility for the bout of undesirable pests and disease (“Urgent biosecurity warning for Sydney’s trees” July 18)? Fire ants (2001), prawn white spot disease (2016), polyphagous shot-hole borer affecting trees in Western Australia (2021) and the honey bee varroa mite (2022) have managed to get past our border security authorities and threaten, or have caused, millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and aquaculture. Who is responsible at an agency and management level? Does it leave the door open for massive class actions by producers? Matthew O’Connor, Gladesville
Amen to that
Many churches have now gained permission, or are seeking it, to develop high-rise building where only a church and maybe a hall currently exist (“The Sydney churches with eyes on high-rise futures”, July 18). Clearly this is going to make the church a lot of money on land they have paid no tax on, given the “charity” status churches enjoy. Not content with being able to develop the land, instead of medium density, they are going for high-rise, drowning out much of the amenity, especially access to light and sunshine. Before this is allowed, taxpayers need to question whether the churches will be made to pay tax on a massive profit, or work their way around it? It’s time churches were taxed properly given only about 40 per cent of Australians now identify as Christians. As religion is based on beliefs, not facts, it makes it a very fuzzy area in our more enlightened times. Jacqui Keats, Black Head
Is it blasphemous to ask whether Sydney churches intend to build high-rise apartments to enable prospective tenants a shorter commute to heaven? Tony Doyle, Fairy Meadow
Postscript
Readers were given a display of Anthony Albanese’s tightrope-walking skills this week as Washington demanded his loyalty in any potential conflict with Beijing, while at the same time Chinese leader Xi Jinping gave him the VIP treatment at vital trade and security talks.
Elbridge Colby, Donald Trump’s top defence adviser, insisted Australia guarantee that the submarines it receives under AUKUS will be used to support the US in any war with China. Awkward. Albanese politely sidestepped, insisting Australia’s defence spending was about “advancing peace and security in our region”.
Herald correspondents weren’t as diplomatic.
“Australia is like a fish on a hook with these AUKUS submarines,” wrote Lynn Savage.
“The response must be a resounding no,” added John Richards.
Derrick Mason was equally sceptical. “Any commitment to the US should be tempered with the knowledge that it is led by an erratic individual whose focus is more on himself than on efforts to create and maintain world peace and stability,” he wrote.
Energy security and the transition to renewables were high on the agenda at the talks. Albanese brought Australian iron ore miners and Chinese steelmakers together to discuss “green iron”, made here using our vast renewable energy potential, before being sold to China.
“The idea of value-adding to our iron ore resources is a welcome step away from the ‘quarry Australia’ mentality,” wrote Roger Epps.
John Court added: “I am confident that our young scientists, engineers, economists and politicians have what it takes.”
The transition to renewables was also central to the Federal Court case brought by Torres Strait Islanders claiming that Australia had breached a duty of care to protect them from the impact of climate change. The judge dismissed the case this week, but was critical of the government’s commitment to emissions reduction. Readers were in agreement.
“The government may have no legal obligation to safeguard its citizens from climate harm, but it has a serious moral duty to do so,” Tom Knowles wrote.
Allen Rees suggested the introduction of a disaster and adaptation levy on fossil fuel exports “as their pollution is driving climate chaos and destroying the Torres Strait Islands”.
Ivan Hemens, Letters editor
- 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.