Albanese government deserves praise for Ukraine contribution

We must applaud our government for deciding to donate 49 Abrams main battle tanks to help Ukraine keep the Russians at bay for a few more weeks, even if they were surplus to requirements and nearing the end of their service life (“Donation for Kyiv a no-brainer after the debacle of buried choppers”, 17/10).

At least they should be in good nick, having never seen action. But this raises again the mystery of the 45 Taipan MRH-90 helicopters, which were reportedly stripped for spare parts and buried under the soil at an undisclosed location while Ukraine was pleading to have them. Were they in such poor condition as to have caused the recipient to disparage the Australian Army’s maintenance procedures?

Kerry MacDermott, Binalong, NSW

While the federal government’s decision to donate Abrams tanks to Ukraine are to be applauded, the mystery remains as to why its actions to date have been so inconsistent. Unfortunately, it will probably only be via an ex-minister’s memoir that it will ever be revealed whether there were major ideological differences within the government or if it was nothing more than a reflection of the ineffectual and cowardly approach of leadership we now see across the West.

When it comes to defence and foreign affairs decisions, the government would be wise to consistently follow the advice of Kevin Rudd (“US ‘faces challenges’ to build AUKUS subs”, 17/10) that we need “to be very laser-focused on the core questions of deterrence”.

Mitch McDonald, Abbotsford, NSW

Goodbye, dissent?

Peta Credlin articulately explains the manifold deficiencies of the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill (“If bill passes, say goodbye to right of dissent”, 17/10). Fortunately, we live in a democracy that will allow a subsequent government to repeal this piece of legislative treachery. What happened to the implied right of free speech in the Australian Constitution?

Peter R. Tredenick, Laidley, Qld

In response to Peta Credlin’s fears of restricting free speech if the proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill is passed I am reminded of the quote often attributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Will the so-called inalienable right to free speech be thwarted by the passage of the misinformation bill? I don’t think so. What is at stake here is not so much the content of opinions expressed but the intent of those statements.

Statements intended to cause hurt and harm, statements intended to incite hatred and violence and statements impugning certain racial or gender and sexuality groups should not enjoy the inalienable “free speech” tag. Let’s celebrate and enjoy our right to free speech but not if it is at the expense of decency, justice and social harmony.

Graeme Lechte, Brunswick, Vic

Should the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill become law, it will seek to cripple the right to free speech in Australia, something that should be of concern to all decent, free-thinking Australians.

Peta Credlin is spot-on when she points out in her column that over a 73-week period from May 2022 until October 2023, some 91 per cent of the fact checks in relation to the voice referendum were subject to censorship.

Should this heavy-handed Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill become a reality, the right to free speech in regards to matters of public importance, especially through the avenues associated with social media, will be subject to censorship and the right to debate will be shut down, thus closing down the right to debate in Australia.

Never forget that the so-called Uluru Statement from the Heart was defeated because many Australians choose the right to speak out over the hatred associated with “black armband” politics.

Angus Moody, Turramurra, NSW

Gas makes sense

The opposition to including natural gas in Australia’s Capacity Investment Scheme is illogical. Natural gas is an ideal backup for renewables because it’s available 24/7 and can be quickly ramped up or down as needed. This flexibility ensures that renewable energy can provide a reliable, dispatchable supply. Alternatives such as batteries and pumped hydro, which rely on renewable power themselves, cannot consistently meet the reliability demands of a modern economy.

The engineering principle that a backup system cannot depend on the same source that failed underscores this point. To meet reliability standards, scaling up solar, wind and battery storage would not only be expensive but could also have a greater environmental impact than using natural gas. Including natural gas as a transitional energy source is simply common sense until a better alternative is available.

Don McMillan, Paddington, Qld