Rather than focus narrowly on the two contenders for the job of prime minister, I urge voters to look at the talent in the federal cabinet versus the talent in the shadow cabinet when deciding who may be better at managing the country. If you do, you will find a yawning gulf in the quality and calibre of the candidates. For the job of treasurer, it’s Jim Chalmers v Angus Taylor. Is Taylor the best they’ve got? He hasn’t come up with anything of substance in the past three years. Foreign Affairs: Penny Wong v David Coleman? I don’t need to go over Wong’s achievements on this front. David Coleman is almost invisible and has barely contributed to the national discussion. Everywhere you look in the shadow cabinet, all you find are duds. They seem to aspire to mediocrity but fall short. Could this explain why Scott Morrison took on all those portfolios? Could this be why Peter Dutton does all the talking?
Please fellow Australians, have a good think about the relative merits of the government and the opposition. Remember what a mess the opposition made of things when they were last in power – rising inflation and unemployment, trade embargoes by China that really hurt, no access at a ministerial level and an international loss of standing. The only thing I knew for sure about the PM was that I wouldn’t believe a word he said. The policy-free opposition has not earned any chance to be returned to power. Nuclear power stations? Stop pulling our legs. And this is the main plank of their platform. Really? The government has had its travails, but it has worked hard at fixing things and making life better, while walking difficult economic tightropes. Labor deserves a second term. Robert McAulay, Kempsey
Minister for Foreign Affairs Penny Wong and Treasurer Dr Jim Chalmers.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
Not since 1931 has any first-term national government in Australia lost an election; on this, Sean Kelly is correct (“Bubble trouble for PM and Dutton”, March 3). Is this because, as he suggests, “they get to run not only against an opposition but against the ghosts of the previous government”? Probably not. Since World War II, the two-party preferred vote of every first-term government has gone backwards. The reason they all survived is that they won by margins that were sufficient to withstand the slide that inevitably followed. Under Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Julia Gillard, the average slide in Labor’s first-term vote was 1.7 percentage points. A similar slide would cost the Albanese government four seats; a slide half that size would still be likely to cost it three. For Labor, a slide no greater than 1.7 percentage points would be a remarkable achievement. The main reason the government is almost certain to lose its majority is that its winning margin was simply too small. Murray Goot, Macquarie University
US an unreliable ally
One has to admire British PM Keir Starmer’s optimism that the US and Britain are “closely aligned” (“At a crossroads in history: Europe warned after Trump furore”, March 3). From the outset of his second presidency, Donald Trump has shifted America’s position in world affairs from sheriff to outlier, if not outlaw. He has abandoned the Paris climate accord, withdrawn from the World Health Organisation, is dismantling USAID, ended mandatory COVID vaccination in schools, slapped tariffs on imports and shown cynical support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine while undermining NATO. Since Trump is so unpredictable, there is no way of knowing what he will do next and which of his allies he is next likely to abandon. Starmer should tread with caution. Frederick Jansohn, Rose Bay
Starmer says Europe is “at a crossroads in history” and this could be an opportunity to bring about lasting peace in a united and New Europe. The appropriate action is to contact Vladimir Putin and convene peace negotiations involving the UN, New Europe, Ukraine and Russia. The US is not part of Europe and should not be involved. The term “coalition of the willing” was tragically used in the invasion of Iraq and should not be adopted again. Michael Fox, Pacific Palms
Those suggesting Trump might get his comeuppance at the next mid-term elections are assuming there will actually be mid-term elections (Letters, March 3). I have no doubt he’s already working on solving that particular problem and, with the Supreme Court in his pocket, he may well succeed. David Baird, Burradoo
Everyone is preoccupied with what happened in the White House and the behaviour of Trump and JD Vance. No one discusses the points raised by Trump: that Ukraine is losing the war and that Volodymyr Zelensky is risking World War III. Surely, they are more important issues to consider than the niceties of peoples’ behaviour in the Oval Office. Ray Warren, Mandurah (WA)
Subs deal a dud
Events at the US Oval Office over the weekend proved that the US is focused primarily on business, making money. This makes it more alarming that our federal government is willingly giving a staggering $4.7 billion to the US simply as a “contribution” to the US shipyards to increase their build capacity as part of the AUKUS agreement. Australia is making a massive contribution to the largest economy in the world? Why? Who got duped here? Who was sniggering when the naive Australian arrived at the negotiating table? This at a time when the US is slashing defence expenditure. Equally astonishing: the commercial terms of the submarine supply agreement are not fully disclosed. The most optimistic view is that we may receive two second-hand submarines – which may then be 20 years old – by 2032. Are we being duped? Why don’t we invest this fortune in our own shipyards? Ukraine has shown how important it is to have an independent defence program. The meaning of contribution: “a gift or payment to a common fund or collection”. Does this $4.7 billion contribution deliver real value? And this is just one instalment. Rod Julian, Springwood
A US nuclear-powered submarine docks at Rockingham, Western Australia in March last year. Credit: US Navy
The two presidential candidates the US electorate rejected were the ones who, with hindsight, spoke the most searing truths (“Putin wants to carve up the world. Trump’s given him the knife”, March 3). Hillary Clinton was pilloried for calling Trump voters “deplorables”. History now reflects that truth. Similarly, Kamala Harris dismissed Trump’s “friendship” with Putin, saying the Russian president was “a dictator who would eat you for lunch”. And “The reason that Donald Trump says that this [Ukrainian] war would be over within 24 hours is because he would just give it up.” History is now telling us we must accept the US is no longer a trustworthy ally and extricate ourselves from AUKUS. Alison Stewart, Riverview
The startling and disrespectful treatment of Zelensky by Trump and Vance must put our own relationship with Trump’s US in serious doubt and need of revision. AUKUS particularly should be reviewed by our government. It is not surprising that this generous “deal” is not being targeted by Trump. We’re giving $350 billion to prop up their submarine industry and for a product not delivered until 2040 when it will probably be obsolete. Plus, there are questions of governance and command. Do we really want to grow our relationship with and dependence on this unstable, unscrupulous deal-maker? Rowan Godwin, Rozelle
Group home system bled dry
The Grattan report which found that the average cost of keeping people in group homes is $350,000 a year beggars belief (“Billion dollar dirty secret: homes hide dire conditions”, March 3). That’s more than $950 a day. For that kind of money, a person could live in a top city hotel, eat fine food, have regular in-house visits by medical professionals and probably afford a holiday, instead of living in squalor and under the threat of violence. Clearly vast sums are being spent on administration, being bled from the system by private providers (that’s called a rort, by the way) or being drained away by inefficient systems. It’s time that all involved in the provision of services for the most vulnerable in our society are dragged into line. Peter Cooper-Southam, Frenchs Forest
If ever there was an example of nominative determinism, then surely Beyond Care is it. Dave Horsfall, North Gosford
Under the counter
Regarding Dr Colin Mendelsohn’s article on the relationship between vaping and reduction in cigarette smoking, I question the accuracy of the statistics and the conclusions (“Our vaping delusions have gone up in smoke. The Kiwis have a better idea”, March 2). Over the past few years, there has been a massive increase in use of illegal tobacco, about which there can be no statistics. My medical specialty deals with the havoc caused by cigarettes, so I see a lot of patients who have either smoked in the past or continue to smoke. Most of my patients who smoke use illegal tobacco from “the tobacconist just down the street around the corner”. One such shop was described to me as “just across the road from the police station”. With cigarette prices among the world’s highest, it is little wonder that over-the-counter sales have decreased both in Australia and New Zealand. However, in my experience the plague continues in an unregulated and immeasurable fashion. Bernie Bourke, Gosford
Vapes can only be bought from pharmacies in NSW.Credit: Wolter Peeters
Smoking tobacco in Australia is on the rise (as least anecdotally) as black market smokes are now cheaper than black market vapes (“Tobacco smuggling warnings ignored”, March 3). All are easily available. Vaping is generally considered a safer alternative to smoking tobacco, but increasingly strict regulation means the legal market for tobacco and vapes is shrinking and tax revenue is falling. Protecting our kids, ostensibly a major reason for Australia having some of highest tobacco taxes and toughest smoking and vaping laws in the world, has only served to expose them to unregulated high-nicotine products. The whole jackboot approach to smoking and vaping in Australia is just plain dumb. Peter Barrett, Woonona
Rising gas exports not good news
It is alarming that Australian gas producers are predicting a large increase in gas exports (“Gas exports forecast to increase by 60% on demand from Asia”, March 3). Contrary to what gas producer Woodside would have us believe, gas is a highly polluting fossil fuel. Our exported gas is contributing to millions of tonnes of emissions every year. Meanwhile, the same companies bemoan the fact that there is not enough gas for our domestic needs. We cannot afford to add to the problem of global warming with emissions from exported gas. The cost of climate reparations in Australia is already more than $7billion annually. Our country needs to show leadership and take a strong stance on climate policy internationally. Anne O’Hara, Wanniassa (ACT)
EV, or not EV
Despite their differences of opinion, Col Burns and my husband, Ken Enderby, would definitely agree on one thing: hybrids are significantly better for the environment and the hip pocket than petrol-powered vehicles (Letters, March 3). That said, they are still 30-year-old technology and do not compare with the experience of driving an EV. Our car (not a Tesla, by the way) floats along like it’s on wings. Nor do we have trouble charging outside of Sydney. Just the other week, we turned up at the Big Ram in Goulburn, where we usually charge on the way south, and saw 20 newly installed superchargers. These can put 200 kilometres into your car in just 10 minutes, and at a much cheaper price than petrol. So yes, Col, Ken and I are still strong advocates for EVs, on environmental and financial grounds. Corinne Gaston, Concord
To reassure those worried about buying an EV, we have not regretted buying our Teslas. While the association with Elon’s antics is now unpleasant as he cavorts with Trump, our car and house battery mean we largely run both on sunshine. We have done several long trips to Queensland and SA with no problem about recharging. Yes, you do need to think ahead, but the car keeps you updated about super-charging options, and at worst, you can charge the car on a trickle-feed overnight. Take the plunge. Rhyan Andrews, Faulconbridge
I get that production of EVs is not great for our planet as fossil fuels are involved, but neither is production of petrol-based cars and hybrids (Letters, March 3). The EVs still win with their ongoing savings to the environment, and some day we will work out greener methods to produce these vehicles. Margaret Grove, Concord
An electronic vehicle charging station. Credit: Wolter Peeters
Beijing not our china plate
Your correspondent seems to imply that we should view the Chinese government as our friend (Letters, March 3). This is a government that has oppressed Muslims; built on Mischief reef despite denying it would ever do so; suppressed freedom of speech in Hong Kong and within its own press; forced Tibetans to assimilate; supported dictators in Cambodia; not to mention intellectual property theft on a Trumpian scale. Sure, we all crave for pals like Chairman Xi. Ashley Berry, Toolijooa
Hooray, Herald
It was happy to see that the number of Herald readers has grown. It prompted me take out my copies from August 1952, which were absolutely loaded with adverts, in stark contrast to the situation today. This made me realise just how tough it has been to stay afloat. Zuzu Burford, Heathcote
Gender imbalance
Letters published on Monday consisted of 21 from men and five from women (Letters, March 3). This imbalance is not an isolated occurrence. The number of letters received from women is surely a factor in this apparent gender imbalance, so come on women, get typing. A ratio of 1:4 is selling us way too short. Meredith Williams, Baulkham Hills
Coming up Rosies
I love Rosie. Her letters help me establish my position on just about everything – I just take the opposite position to her. But her tribute to Gene Hackman has me in alignment. Amanda Jordan, Artarmon
Bill Young was surprised by my “touching” letter about Gene Hackman, but homage was due to my favourite movie actor, so I did temporarily ditch my witch’s broom (Letters, March 3). But a remounting is in the wind. Rosie O’Brien, Ashfield
- 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.