Alexandra Smith writes how Alan Stockdale and Richard Alston, those reactionary Liberal MPs of the past, chose to sit under a portrait of Robert Menzies to utter their inanities about women in their party, but I doubt the urbane founding father of the Liberals would support their macho mutterings (“How to annoy Liberal women. Tell them they are sufficiently assertive”, June 5). Why would any self-respecting woman contemplating entering politics even consider joining a party that sees them as inferiors and, unlike Labor’s championing of female representation, has failed repeatedly to consider strategies like quotas? As Sean Carney says elsewhere in the Herald, “the Liberal Party is not in good health” (“Libs’ ‘revolution’ still a long way off”, June 5). A major reason for this is the all-too pervasive chauvinism detailed by Smith. Ron Sinclair, Windradyne
Credit: Cathy Wilcox
A word of advice to Charlotte Mortlock and the 449 petitioners hopeful of changing their party’s misogyny: look elsewhere for representation. A party that still trots out John Howard and defers to Tony Abbott and other lurching dinosaurs will not be changing any time soon. Gender quotas should have been a first order of business after the failure of Scott “woman problem” Morrison. Instead, they elevated Peter Dutton, who also failed miserably, particularly with women, and they look set to continue failing miserably while grumbling about a “misinformed” electorate. You can’t teach old dogs new tricks. Alison Stewart, Riverview
Alan Stockdale’s own-goal clanger that “women are now sufficiently assertive” and men may need help within the Liberal Party says it all about the Liberal Party’s chances of reform any time soon. Andrew Macintosh, Cromer
Alan Stockdale raised eyebrows at the NSW Liberal Women’s Council meeting.Credit: AAPIMAGE
Tax scare campaign
Shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien’s attack on the PM’s defined benefit super account is deliberately misleading (“Coalition shuts down deal on super tax”, June 5). Yet again, the Libs are exaggerating an “Abbott/Credlin” type of tax fear campaign. O’Brien fails to mention that most public sector workers have, or had, the optional defined benefit super. On retirement, the money can be taken as a lump sum or be drawn down as a “pension”. At the heart of this is yet another attack by the Liberals on public sector workers, just as they did in the attack on working from home during the election. Carolyn Pettigrew, Turramurra
Shuttle Cox
After sitting shackled on the Labor backbench and attending many caucus meetings for a couple of years, WA senator Dorinda Cox might have much more to say if she doesn’t receive preselection for Labor’s 2028 Senate ticket (“Cox slated Labor in her pitch to Greens”, June 5). Meanwhile, both the prime minister and Cox should come clean about when she applied to become a member of the Labor Party again and when and how this was facilitated and approved (“Stop the Senate being a launch pad for deserters”, June 5). Sue Dyer, Downer (ACT)
Thank you, Dorinda Cox, for confirming in your 2020 defection from Labor to the Greens that “it became clear that [the Labor Party] cared more about election donors than the views of members”. Neither Dorinda nor Labor seem to have the good of the country and those who voted for them as their priority. Mark Tietjen, Redfern
Nats not listening
The National Party has controlled the bush for 40 years or more. They always have plenty of money to spend on elections and appear to get great support from mining and fossil fuel industries. Many farmers realise the dangers of climate change, but the Nationals aren’t listening. They want to live in the past and deny it is a factor in the floods and bushfires we are having to deal with. When you drive through many country towns you see so many empty shops in the main streets, a sure sign of a town going backwards. Towns that had a couple of sporting teams now struggle to make up to one. The outlook is bleak. Rural and regional Australians deserve a better future than the National Party can offer. Barney Thompson, Parkes
The Nationals have ignored voters’ concerns about climate change, a reader writes.
Gas deal needs limits
Your correspondent was spot-on saying “the electorate thought Labor would do better protecting the environment” (Letters, June 5). And it was unusual to get a real sense of Ross Gittins’ anger over the government’s decision to extend the life of Woodside’s North West shelf project (“In one awful decision, Albanese has revealed his do-nothing plan”, June 4). The government is unlikely to reverse the decision, but before they sign off on the deal, can the prime minister please guarantee there will be a totally transparent revenue-sharing formula to properly recompense Australians for such large-scale extraction of our gas? And also, before signing any contracts, please work with Australia’s climate scientists to decide on a legally enforceable condition, based on the atmospheric CO2 level, at which the gas project must be stopped. Such a condition is crucial, given the Earth’s atmosphere – currently at 420ppm – is already way past the previously recognised “safe” greenhouse gas level of 350ppm. Rob Firth, Red Hill (ACT)
Tunnel vision
Correspondent Jim Donovan writes that the Western Harbour Tunnel will have a capacity of 5400 vehicles an hour each way (Letters, June 5). In Sydney, average private vehicle occupancy is only 1.1 people per vehicle. Thus, the capacity of the tunnel is 6000 people per hour each way. It is not a convenient route on which to add public transport – motorways rarely are. The environmental impact statement said the tunnel would carry just 60,000 vehicles a day. Thus, it will average just 1400 people per hour each way across the day, little more than one Waratah train with a capacity of 1200 people. As Donovan says, the tunnel is not a good idea. It never was. The tunnel and its giant Rozelle spaghetti junction are an unnecessary addition to Sydney’s motorways. Our main road and rail network routes must be actively scrutinised by parliament. Peter Egan, Mosman
Borsak’s elephant in the room
Shooters Party chairman Robert Borsak was heard this week on commercial radio decrying the aerial culling of brumbies in the National Park, a reasonable measure to limit the damage they are causing (“Shooters Party reveals its demands”, June 4). This from a man who shoots elephants for pleasure in their natural environment. How puny he looks in the souvenir photo next to his magnificent victim. As they say, photographs don’t lie. Simon Dixon, Bolton Point
Perhaps not having an upper house in Queensland is a blessing – we avoid lunatics like the Shooters Party. I found the colour picture of Robert Borsak posing with an elephant he shot to be highly offensive. What did this beautiful creature do to him to deserve that? Which part of the dead animal will advance humanity? Only a photo and perhaps ivory, to satisfy the idiot’s ego. Ferdo Mathews, Robina (Qld)
Leader of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party Robert Borsak.Credit: Janie Barrett
No Great Koala National Park, no gambling reform, funds for UFC because he thinks it promotes healthy lifestyles for men, bulldozes perfectly good, solid timber homes in Lismore in the middle of a housing crisis right after a flood disaster. And now recommends hunting in National Parks by hobby shooters to control feral animals. Is it just me, or is Premier Chris Minns channelling Trump? Dorin Suciu, Eleebana
Play to pay
More money needed for defence. More money needed to quell our housing crisis. Maybe even a few bucks to prop up a struggling worker’s comp scheme (Letters, June 5). Cash-strapped governments can rest easy – I’ve found the money tree. According to a Wesley Mission analysis of state government data, loyal pokie punters poured $2.7 billion into one-arm bandits in the first 90 days of this year. That’s $24 million a day, or $1 million an hour. Just harness the revenue flowing into the local Lucky Strike Lounge, and hey presto, problem solved. Mark Paskal, Austinmer
Old ways die hard
I don’t feel owned or inferior to my husband, but I do wish I hadn’t agreed to give up my name for his (Letters, June 5). There isn’t a good reason to do so and the idea that sharing the same surname “creates and denotes a family unit” and benefits children by helping them feel secure is just old-fashioned nonsense. Our daughter kept her maiden name when she married, and the children of that union have a surname created by blending part of her surname with part of their father’s. In other words, their surname is not the same as either of their parents. Amazingly, they are happy, secure and despite the variety of names, understand that they’re all part of the same family. In a world where many of their peers live in blended, or same-sex or single-parent families, the fact that they have different surnames to those of their parents is in no way unusual. Prue Nelson, Cremorne Point
I’m intrigued by your correspondent’s claim that a woman using her husband’s name will ensure their children feel secure. Our kids used “Mummy” and “Daddy” and seemed pretty secure with that. Anne Kirman, Wilton
Red flags
Can’t wait for the Safework inquiry into antisemitism at Sydney Uni (“SafeWork savages Sydney University over antisemitism on campus”, June 5). The preliminary report already looks sus if it considers as “antisemitism” three girls pulling down an Israeli flag at a stand run by the Australian Union of Jewish Students in orientation week. If that is “antisemitic”, what does that make other Jewish students who are disgusted by Israel’s starving and bombing of Palestinian civilians? Pulling down and burning flags are classic forms of protest at nations’ misbehaviour. Criticism of state actions (via flags) is not prejudice against Jewish people. If Sydney Uni had any commonsense and moral backbone it would have banned the display of Israel flags itself when the UN accused Israel of genocide. John Synnott, Enmore
Calling the shots
The rationale for pouring massive sums of money into defence is that, while the probability of conflict is low, the outcome arising from unpreparedness would be catastrophic for the nation. What then of climate change? The probability of a catastrophic outcome is far higher than armed conflict, yet we don’t commit enough money. Why not? Not only do we apply different logic to these two threats, we seem ready to spend massive dollars to protect Woodside shareholders and Gina Rinehart, while doing nothing to rein in emissions-producing projects that significantly add to climate risk, even when the nation receives no financial benefit from such activity. My opinion of our politicians (save the odd honourable exception) has never been very high. It has sunk to derisive levels, heading towards incandescent rage. They regard us with contempt. The real decision makers sit not in parliament, but in transnational and national fossil fuel boardrooms. George Williams, North Balgowlah
Recycling boom
Good news is rare but when it turns up it’s a real cracker (“Container return schemes booming”, June 5). Recycling schemes are booming, with all the flow-on benefits. Super. Now if only we could get our act together with soft plastics. Nicholas Triggs, Katoomba
Tomra Cleanaway CEO James Dorney at the Tomra sorting centre at Eastern Creek.Credit: Sitthixay Ditthavong
Container return schemes are great but why are they so limited? Why not wine bottles, or all glass bottles? Why not food cans? Steven Lee, Faulconbridge
With the outstanding success of the limited container return scheme, surely it is now time to implement a scheme to collect all types of containers. Recycling is a significant and achievable method of improving the environment, a goal we all should be seeking to achieve. Hayden Kelly, Mosman
Fine by me
Dog owners’ argument that increased fines is “revenue-raising” needs to be answered the same as when levelled at speed cameras. If owners obey the law, they won’t be fined (“Councils want dog owners on a tighter leash”, June 4). Increased fines could pay for more rangers to enforce the laws, designed to protect people and the environment, which too many dog owners think don’t apply to them. It takes just one unleashed dog to destroy a shorebirds nesting site and threaten their existence. Karen Joynes, Bermagui
Speaking of dog poo, during my regular morning walks I once spotted an owner wiping her puppy’s bottom with a tissue after a number two. Nice one. Edward Loong, Milsons Point
Earth to Elon
Couldn’t President Trump issue an executive order that the red planet is now to be known as Marsk and that Elon is to be the sole occupier? Kent Mayo, Uralla
Last supper
It’s funny how Australia’s most famous chef is known for only one ingredient (“The picture of an accused mushroom killer”, June 4). Leo Oostveen, Chippendale
Airport outrage
I could not agree more that the airport train station’s fee is absolutely abominable (Letters, June 5). A family of two adults and two children will pay $65.68 just to get onto the station platform. Other fares are then added. This is ridiculous and does not encourage using public transport. It’s cheaper to take an Uber or taxi. I recently helped an elderly relative with her luggage to the airport. She had to pay the exorbitant fee once and for my efforts I had to pay it twice (once to come home again). Peggy Fisher, Manly
It’s cheaper for a family to take a taxi to the airport than use the train. Credit: Janie Barrett
If correspondent Philip Laird seriously thinks the airport access fee will end in 2030 I’ve got a bridge I could rent to him (Letters, June 5). David Calvey, Gosford
I booked a $54 Uber ride from the domestic airport to Roseville one night this week. When the driver eventually picked me up he asked for an extra $50 cash. I refused, so he drove me around the airport and dropped me back at departures. At this stage, the $54 booking has not been refunded. It’s not only taxis that see the airport as a magic pudding (Letters, June 5). Vicky Bridgewater, Merimbula
Forget taxis and station access fees at the airport. Have you seen what they’re charging for an egg and lettuce sandwich? Jeremy Brender, West Richmond (SA)
- 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.