Deeming a hero as she makes a stand for conservatives

Peta Credlin’s outline of the John Pesutto and Moira Deeming saga is as dispiriting as it is well penned (“Leadership vacuum puts Libs on war footing”, 11/5). Pesutto has been making the wrong calls from the get-go, while the principled Deeming has been a hero, standing up for biological truth and making good on her maiden speech to fight for sex-based rights for women who were suffering from governments that could not or would not define what a woman was.

The conservative, conviction politician Deeming is walking her talk. While Pesutto has run amok, treating Deeming disgracefully and failing in what should be his number one objective: to provide a viable, alternative government.

Mandy Macmillan, Singleton, NSW

Peta Credlin is correct about the parlous state of the Victorian Liberals. The most valuable contribution that John Pesutto could make to Victorian public life would be to immediately resign.

Dennis Walker, North Melbourne, Vic

It is a measure of the failure of the Victorian Liberal Party that it was unable to make a dent in the Labor government at the last state election.

Now, John Pesutto is further bent on destroying his party by alienating Victorian women in punishing a strong MP who defended her view on women’s rights in the true tradition of the Liberal Party’s values. John Pesutto has failed in his disgraceful pursuit of martyring Moira Deeming in an attempt to save his own plummeting career. He has displayed his ineptitude as Opposition Leader and betrayed Liberal values in his witch hunt of Moira Deeming. She must be reinstated and John Pesutto must resign unless the Liberals wish to remain in opposition forever.

Mary-Anne Higgins, Rose Park, SA

Coronation triumph

The coronation of King Charles was a historic, religious and cultural celebration. King Charles, as defender of the Protestant faith, made the Archbishop of Canterbury’s role very significant. The personal extras included by Charles in supporting all faiths and races epitomise the fact that he is a good man. What a wonderful education for our young people. The ABC, instead, used this celebration to preach about the sins of the past, ruining the presentation in the lead-up to the occasion. I was disappointed in Stan Grant’s delivery of “stuff” we all regret. I follow Stan and see him as one of our gifted journalists, but this surely wasn’t the time to vent.

Val Ricciardo, City Beach, WA

Matter of choice

Paul Hayes KC (“Bar shouldn’t be entering political debate on the voice”, 11/5), is right. An even more serious issue has now arisen because members of the Bar are being denied the option to vote that if the Bar wants to take a stand, it should be to support the No case.

The first proposal being put to us is that the voice is a contentious political issue on which the Bar should not take a position of public advocacy. The second proposal is that the Bar should support the voice and publicly argue for its adoption at the referendum. There is, however, a glaring omission that members of the Bar are not being offered a third choice.

That option is that if the Bar does decide to take a stand, it should be for the No case, not for the Yes case. There are many barristers appalled that the Bar seems ready to abandon its independence and take the stand for the Yes case. There are also many barristers who are strongly of the view that if the Bar is to become a party to this debate, it should be to advocate for the No case.

Neil Brown KC, South Yarra, Vic

What a pleasure to read the article by Paul Hayes KC that provides a reminder for us all to take a civilised approach to the contemporary debate on the voice referendum. It has, unfortunately, all too often become divisive.

In his article, Hayes expresses the view that the national conversation on the voice is a timely and important one that concerns each of us because we all have a single vote framed by our individual opinion. His hope that the discussion will be sincere and respectful echoes the bulk of the community.

We each need to listen to, then evaluate, the large number of opinions expressed and make of them what we will.

Ian Dunlop, Hawks Nest, NSW

I keep reading opinions that the voice will divide Australians on the basis of race.

I don’t see it that way. I see it as simply acknowledging two distinct groups of people in our Constitution.

First, there are the original settlers of this continent, who arrived about 65,000 years ago and occupied this land. Second, there are people like myself, much more recent settlers, who arrived over the last few hundred years, and who forcibly dispossessed the original owners.

That is the basis on which I will be voting for the voice.

John Baker, Griffith, ACT