Governors-general ought to be chosen on merit, not race

Many Indigenous leaders who don’t subscribe to the black-armband view of Australian history would make worthy governors-general. However, the right time to make such an appointment is not now in the shadow of the failed voice referendum. It would always be viewed as a tokenistic second prize awarded by a paternalistic government that didn’t understand that Australians didn’t want race injected into the Constitution or for that matter any appointment where competence should be the sole criteria.

John Allsop, Mont Albert, Vic

Appointing an Indigenous governor-general would be welcome. But to appoint anyone as governor-general on the basis of race rather than merit would be a grievous mistake. Although the role is largely ceremonial, it is nevertheless a role that reinforces Australia’s traditional allegiance to the crown. Accordingly, appointees should have demonstrated throughout their life a commitment to service in support of all Australians and all that modern Australia represents.

Geoff Ellis, Smithfield, Qld

Help, not drugs

Recognition that the latest generation of mood-altering drugs are not effective for the vast majority taking them, except as a source of vast profits for drug companies, comes as no surprise to me.

This has all happened before, with psychiatric misuse of barbiturates, benzodiazepines and now the SSRI reuptake inhibitors. We have been told that these medications are safe, non-addictive and need to be taken for a long time. This is utterly and dangerously wrong.

The push to label social causes of human distress as “mental health issues” is similarly dangerous. This is a major reason our suicide prevention interventions have been so ineffective.

I found that as a social worker most of the distress I saw in my clients was best alleviated by listening, displaying compassion and advocacy. Yes, actually using my professional skills to assist with their problems.

The mental health industry, dominated by chemical psychiatry and psychology that does no more than listen, has been cruel exploitation of people needing help.

Andrew Humphreys, Adelaide, SA

Preferential folly

After decades of minimal impact on the election of major-party federal governments, the preferential voting system has finally made a big impact and now threatens to create unstable, hybrid future governments. The emergence of the teals is the direct result of playing the unjustified preferential voting system to the hilt and this success may well mushroom at the next election. Prospects for replacing the union-backed Labor government will diminish greatly if the Climate 200 independents retain or increase their representation. In 2025 the ALP is the most likely of the two major parties to form government but only because of teals and Greens support. In the 2022 election, none of the six new teals had a majority after counting of primary votes. The question should be posed to electors in the elitist teal seats: If every electorate preferred their own special independents, how could a majority government ever be formed?

David Burt, Quindalup, WA

Activists different now

John Carroll correctly identifies growing civic concern over the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protest movement that we are seeing in Australian society (“Protest politics of the Sixties reflected in a divided culture”, 20-21/1).

The protest movement in the 1960s shared common ideals with the vast silent majority of Aussies. There was a common desire to address racial inequality, as in the Moree Freedom Ride, and to prevent the loss of young Aussie lives in the Vietnam conflict. These protests offered no threat to Australians’ sense of national identity, unlike the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protests we are seeing in our universities, our schools and in our multicultural ethnic groups.

These protesters have harnessed the minority-group victimhood mentality to stir up a dormant racial hatred that we thought had been seen off with the rise of human rights at the end of Irish and English sectarianism in the mid-20th century.

This threatens our very sense of national identity as we attempt to navigate towards a safe and happy Australian society in 2024.

John Bell, Heidelberg Heights, Vic

Sitting ducks

Victoria’s Labor MPs are wrestling with the question: to shoot or not to shoot native birds. A recent inquiry recommended a ban, consistent with NSW, WA and Qld.

Voters may be shocked to learn how cheaply we sacrifice our ducks and quail. A full-price bird-shooting licence costs about $60 (many are discounted). It entitles the shooter to 10 ducks a day, for 87 days. So these native waterbirds are priced below 7c a head. Native quail can be shot for 86 days with a daily quota of 20 birds – priced at 3.5c each. Licence fees have not gone up (apart from indexation) since 1995. Who gives a duck?

Joan Reilly, Surrey Hills, Vic