Labor demonstrates the art of deflection in its response on Katy Gallagher

The phones must have been working overtime in the Labor camp over the King’s Birthday long weekend as it strategised its response to the alleged misleading of the Senate by senator Katy Gallagher. Certainly its deflections committee would have been hard at it: throw it back on the previous government like it does with all other bad news; anyone who’s anyone must come out and preach Katy’s “unquestionable integrity”; and so it goes.

I’m certain Gallagher will keep her job as Labor’s Praetorian Guard manifests itself to protect Anthony Albanese’s behind. However, I challenge the claim by Albanese and other key members of his government that they didn’t weaponise the Brittany Higgins rape allegation to assist in bringing down the Morrison government. Might I suggest this was more important to them than sympathising with Higgins?

The usual suspects have been out there all weekend condemning the Morrison government over this issue; it’s called the art of deflection.

But we can be sure of one thing with Labor: unity. Its members will stand together as they vigorously deny the allegations; morals and truth are irrelevant.

John George, Terrigal, NSW

Two wrongs don’t make a right, however the Coalition’s pursuit of Finance Minister Katy Gallagher seems somewhat hypocritical.

The Coalition is targeting Senator Gallagher on the grounds that she potentially misled parliament on her knowledge of the Brittany Higgins allegations before they became public.

Knowingly giving false information to parliament is a serious charge and a contempt of parliament. The Coalition is not on unimpeachable grounds because a former Liberal staffer has accused former prime minister Scott Morrison of also misleading parliament on the Higgins issue.

Perhaps it’s a case of proceed with caution, and those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Randal Markey, Campbell, ACT

If the alleged amount of compensation was given to Brittany Higgins, this is a mighty insult to every child victim who was physically and sexually assaulted while under government or other forms of institutionalised care.

The $150,000 the federal government offers under the National Redress Scheme to child victims shows how much it cares about its political position.

Show more empathy for child victims and increase the Redress Scheme amount to $250,000. It’s the least the federal government can do.

Elizabeth Pilkington, Keysborough, Vic

Age journo travesty

If proof were needed of the intolerance and humourlessness of the woke, it was apparently confirmed by the sacking of journalist Julie Szego by The Age (“Age sacks columnist amid gender furore”, 12/6).

How dare she expect the masthead to run an article on youth gender transition commissioned by the former editor but that the current editor doesn’t approve of. How dare she attend the Let Women Speak rally, even as a journalist. And, horror of horrors, how very dare she make an irreverent comment about writing being “rendered unreadable by a committee of woke journalists redacting words they deem incendiary, such as ‘male’ ”.

Hopefully, Szego’s journalistic ability will be appreciated by media less prone to cancelling.

Susan Caughey, Glen Iris, Vic

Aboriginal vote

George Williams (“Voice can complete unfinished business of 1967 referendum”, 12/6) repeats the claim by Shireen Morris (“Migrants got a fair go, it’s our turn to pay it forward”, 7/6) that a ban on Aboriginal people voting in federal elections was introduced in 1902. It was not.

The legislation, as introduced by the Barton government, had nothing to do with Aboriginal people. Its primary purpose was to extend the right of women to vote to the four states where they could not. To get it through, the Barton government had to give way to pressure, mainly from Labor, to add Aboriginal people to the ban on voting by imported indentured labour. It was feared they would be directed how to vote by the importers. This was part of a policy to end the practice of using indentured labour.

In any event, the legislation was expressly subject to the Constitution’s section 41, which provides that anyone who acquires state voting rights cannot be prevented from voting in federal elections. The government pointed out that this neutralised the amendment.

At Federation, Aboriginal men could register to vote in all states and Aboriginal women in two. However, in Queensland and South Australia this was subject to the restriction that they own or lease property worth at least £100. Given the seriousness of the issue of constitutional change, your readers are surely entitled to know the facts.

David Flint, Bondi Beach, NSW