Credit: Cathy Wilcox
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@theage.com.au. Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.
FEDERAL POLITICS
David Crowe warns Labor (“Don’t hurry to the polls, prime minister, it looks grim”, 24/2) that “it is on course for defeat unless it stages a dramatic turnaround”. It has been obvious for many months that Labor cannot win with Anthony Albanese as leader. His oratorical skills, his political courage and indeed his charisma are all sadly lacking. Labor is in the same position as the US Democratic Party was with Joe Biden as leader; it has no chance of winning unless it can surprise the electorate with a new and convincing leader.
The Democrats were unable to pull it off with Kamala Harris because they lacked the time to select an appropriate leader. Labor has done it in the past with Bob Hawke and they need to act now to replace Albanese. A government led by a Trump acolyte would be a travesty.
Maurie Trewhella, Hoppers Crossing
The benefits of change
Australians are struggling with the cost of living. Therefore, we must have political change. Right? Peter Dutton, as did Donald Trump, points to the cost-of-living problem. However, like Trump, Dutton seems to offer no cure. Before voters choose the Coalition, they would do well to keep an eye on the US cost of living after the election of Trump.
Lawrence Cohen, Blackburn North
Opportunity squandered
Perhaps after looking at the latest poll results, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese might regret abandoning his promise of legislation to ban gambling advertising by the end of 2024. In doing so he not only rejected the expectation of over 70 per cent of the electorate but also established grounds for the government to be regarded as incapable, lacking in integrity, and cowardly. Is it any wonder, therefore, that by giving in to the clamour of the gambling lobby rather than by being moved by the well-being of its citizens, the government finds itself in the unenviable position of polling only around the meagre 30 per cent mark of primary electoral support.
Brian Marshall, Ashburton
Solutions or headlines?
In watching the Peter Dutton approach over the years, I am reminded of an old intensive care department dictum: “When you don’t know what the hell is going on or what to do about it, call in the surgeons. They won’t have the faintest idea either, but they’ll sure as hell do something about it.” We are going through complex times, which are only going to get harder. The last thing the nation needs is a leader who reduces hard, complex issues to simple wrong solutions in search of a headline. This is exemplified by his avoidance of any scrutiny, aided and abetted by media who seem to have forgotten their basic role – to speak truth to power, also to demand truth of it. We deserve better.
Dr Andrew Watkins, Olinda
Giving up on industry
The federal and South Australian governments believe that saving Whyalla’s steelworks is in the sovereign interest (“Why Albanese and Dutton are tripling down on a struggling steel mill”, 22/2). What a pity they were not in power when the dollar reached a temporary high, and Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey oversaw the shutdown of motor vehicle manufacturing in Australia – another example of the neo-liberal policy failures described by your correspondents on the letters page (“Dutton’s track will only lead us backwards”, 20/2).
Norman Huon, Port Melbourne
Courageous stand
Rather than the Greens’ “growing irrelevance and hardline populist positions”, as claimed by your correspondent (Letters, 24/2), they have had the guts to take an unpopular stand in advocating for the Palestinian underdogs whose houses and traditional land have been reduced to rubble before our eyes. As for the Greens’ scrutiny of the Albanese government’s broken promises on the environment, they remain its leading champion in an unequal contest.
Angela Munro, Carlton North
THE FORUM
Not a plan, a diversion
I have a small gripe with David Crowe’s otherwise excellent report on the Coalition’s nuclear thought bubble (“Greenhouse gas rise of 2 billion tonnes forecast under Coalition”, 24/2). Crowe refers to this as a Coalition “plan”. It is not a plan. Nuclear energy in Australia represents a reckless and disingenuous diversion from the vital and urgent task of stabilising our earth’s climate. The Climate Change Authority’s data confirms this.
It is deeply disheartening that, despite reneging on international climate commitments and joking about the impact of rising seas on Pacific Islands back in 2015, Peter Dutton is now polling to become the next prime minister of this country (“Albanese on the nose as voters flock to Dutton”, 24/2). As we approach a critical election, one can only hope that sensible Australians will look beyond the empty rhetoric of the major parties and instead support grassroots community representatives who offer genuine, forward-thinking solutions.
Amy Hiller, Kew
Dutton’s dreaming
My sister lives in Somerset, UK. Hinkley Point, the site of Britain’s new nuclear reactor, is a few kilometres from her front door. Construction began in 2016 at a projected cost of around
£16 billion and an expected completion date of 2025. Current estimates put the final cost at
£47 billion ($93 billion) and the completion date at perhaps 2031. Historically, cost overruns for nuclear reactors come in at between 120 per cent and 240 per cent. The Coalition likes to see itself as the party of sound economic management and Dutton’s current thinking seems to be that he can build seven, admittedly smaller, nuclear reactors for a cost of somewhere in the vicinity of $300 billion. The word “dreaming” springs to mind.
Alan Whittaker, East Kew
Exciting innovation
How good to read of an innovative project tackling the challenge of longer-term energy storage as solar and wind generation forge ahead and make coal power generation redundant (“Giant clean energy storage domes could recast coal towns”, 24/2). Full marks to the Italian start-up Energy Dome for its creativity. With Trump’s abandonment of the Paris Agreement, Australia can advance positive partnerships with a Europe that stays the course (“World urged to stay the course on climate action as Trump turns away”, 24/2). Of course, it’s too soon to say whether this new technology – compressing carbon dioxide with daytime energy, storing it in giant bladders, then converting it back into gas at night to drive turbines – will succeed economically, but it’s promising. These are the sort of imaginative ventures that expose the pipedream of nuclear energy for what it is: a pedestrian policy that prolongs carbon pollution and slams the brakes on the economy. Now’s the time to invest in solutions, for everyone’s sake.
Tom Knowles, Parkville
Inviting China
For Mick Ryan to say that it is brazen for Chinese warships to be encroaching on Australia’s coast is tendentious and misleading (“Why ‘brazen’ Chinese warships are off Sydney’s coast”, 22/2). The Chinese warships (two frigates and a supply vessel) were in international waters where they and any other nation’s ships are entitled lawfully to be. That China has sent such ships to waters near Australia can only have been expected in view of Australia sending warships and aircraft to carry out surveillance and reconnaissance in the South China Sea, thereby “encroaching on [China’s ] coast”. Australia has by its action provoked such action so it cannot reasonably complain. Moreover, Australia is only inviting Chinese surveillance by allowing the US to turn the north of the country into a huge military base for operations against China. The prudent course is to decouple from the US. The Ukraine experience should serve as a warning.
Barry Fox, South Melbourne
Gaps exposed
China has just sent us a big message that Australia is a paper tiger when it comes down to having a capable defence force that is capable of repelling or deterring other countries from attacking our shores. Years of wasteful spending on our so-called defence, and what do we have to show for it? We have been conned by various governments into thinking we don’t need nuclear weapons or missiles to deter anyone but instead can rely on the US to do it all, instead of equipping ourselves to a standard so that we can do it all by ourselves.
Terence Dexter, Veteran, Qld
On the back foot
Although China is master of the long game, it is unlikely that it is “just playing mind games with us” (Letters, 24/2). The “game” for China is played with supreme intent, every move is calculated to achieve its ultimate goal. Setbacks are merely temporary hindrances, skilfully or forcefully, overcome, negotiated or sidestepped. This is no game of tiddlywinks.
In the face of such an agile, determined, uncompromising and formidably armed player, Australia is on the back foot. As commentators have long noted, our military capability is degraded from hardware to personnel, and this is not to denigrate those serving in our armed forces but to observe that they are fewer in number than is needed.
Furthermore, the cohesiveness of our society, the loyalty and love for our nation, has been and is being, systematically undermined by the politics of identity tribalism and the accompanying politics of grievance and victimhood. We are increasingly a nation divided. It leaves us ripe for the taking by a combat-ready, expansionist, and patriotically united aggressor.
Deborah Morrison, Malvern East
Fine line
Your correspondent suggests that Penny Wong will only issue a “strongly worded protest” to China about their naval presence in the Tasman Sea, implying that is weak. Pretty difficult to be hawkish when China buys one third of Australia’s exports, don’t you think? We are trying to walk a tightrope.
Phil Labrum, Trentham
Opening a conversation
A lot of people still don’t (and maybe don’t want to) understand Trump. Yes, he has the subtlety of a sledgehammer, but his modus operandi is to make dramatic statements to get a point across, and then work back from there to achieve a level of agreement (“The week that shook Europe: how Trump drastically reshaped global order”, 21/2).
Trump has stated that he wants to be remembered as a peacemaker. To create peace you have to be diplomatic. This means listening to the concerns of all sides involved and not just focusing on one. Ukraine already has the strong support of the West. To create peace, like it or not, Putin’s concerns have to be considered as well. Putin started the war partly because he felt that the West had no regard for his concerns – in particular, the ever-increasing sphere of NATO.
Maybe when Trump voiced some of Putin’s rhetoric, it wasn’t that he necessarily believed those claims. Reading between the lines, maybe Trump was saying “I am willing to listen when others are not”.
Maybe Trump feels this is the best approach to get into a position to negotiate peace and to end the war. Time will tell.
Robert Witte, Mitcham
How to inspire recruits?
Having read The Age’s excellent article by Chris Zappone about Anduril and the Ghost Shark drones, I agree with the philosophy of Anduril that the future of warfare will be drones and AI. So, I ask, why is Australia spending so many billions of dollars on manned nuclear submarines? A large metal tube full of seamen seems a waste of tax dollars. And who will crew these subs? I don’t think there will be a rush of new recruits to ride under the water in a metal tube. But if Defence were to run a campaign to recruit drone pilots, I suspect there would be a stampede. Tomorrow’s recruit has grown up with all the technology.
Wes Rosenbaum, Berwick
Sub tactics
Your article on the future of war states that the submarine force of Imperial Japan sought to isolate Australia through the use of submarines. This was not the case, as Japanese naval doctrine during the Second World War involved submarines co-operating with the surface fleet against opposing navies. One can argue the merits of this, but it did result in Japanese submarines successfully attacking US naval forces during major fleet engagements. The Japanese did not seek to emulate the German U-boat warfare in the Atlantic, and as a result the toll of allied merchant ships sunk through Japanese submarine action was remarkably low.
Colin Nicholson, Brunswick West
An oath of care
Waleed Aly’s plea for no fear nor favour (“We’re right to be outraged about the Sydney nurses – but let’s be careful about why”, 21/2) is a timely reminder to doctors and nurses caring for unwell and injured patients from socio-cultural affiliations antagonistic to the carer’s.
Aly’s is the voice of reason in these polarising and fractured times. As an emergency specialist, I have cared for drunk drivers who have wreaked carnage on our roads; broken fists that land blows upon innocent bystanders; and prisoners considered so dangerous that each arm and leg is mandated to be separately handcuffed to the bedside.
Being human, I am not immune to the intrusion of these patients’ violent acts into my judgment. The personal measure of my ambition to deliver cool-headed unbiased care is that resuscitation performance indicators to save a limb or a life for both perpetrator and victim are no different. If I fulfil that, my conscience rests easy.
The more frequent foe for the clinician to guard against is surely delayed and omitted care, as distinct from the Bankstown nurses’ cold threats to inflict harm on Jewish Australian patients.
Dr Joseph Ting, Carina, Qld
AND ANOTHER THING
Credit: Matt Golding
Politics and polls
Australians are “flocking to Dutton” when Dutton, Ley, McKenzie, Taylor, and co were the team supporting the Morrison government that the Australian people threw out three years ago. The word “lemmings” comes to mind.
Kay Moulton, Surrey Hills
It seems the Liberals are so devoid of campaign ideas, they have to copy the Labor Party on Medicare.
Carol Adams, Bentleigh East
Is the Coalition’s promise to better Labor’s Medicare bid a core promise?
George Reed, Wheelers Hill
Ukraine-Russia war
That was the best of articles by George Brandis (“Can NATO survive Trump ...” 24/2). He stuck to principles without adding partisan spin. And he even agreed with Kevin Rudd. Well said.
Andrew Barnes, Ringwood
Trump, the the self-proclaimed master of the deal, apparently is agreeing to everything Russia wants. No negotiating makes achieving a deal so much easier.
Geoff Charles, Mount Waverley
When neither party is happy with the deal struck, you have it about right.
Craig Tucker, Newport
It would appear that Trump is frightened of Putin.
Ross Barker, Lakes Entrance
How long before Trump invites Russia into the alliance and it becomes RAUKUS? Seems fitting.
Peter Loney, Drumcondra
Of course, Ukraine started the war. Everyone knows that World War II was started by Winston Churchill, when he refused to let Adolf Hitler come in and take over the UK. Simple, isn’t it Donald?
Kent Hansen, St Kilda
Furthermore
“US trumps Australia for shark bites” (The Age, 24/2). At least we still have the Great Australian Bight.
Robin Jensen, Castlemaine
Re: “I’m so over Bridget Jones, she’s depressing and foolish”, (22/2), I love Bridget just the way she is. Not something I can say about everyone.
Helen Matthews, Olinda
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@theage.com.au. Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.