Murdoch University academic should reflect on his Anzac ideology

How ironic that a lecturer at a university named after a close relative of Keith Murdoch, author of the famous Gallipoli letter, and Ivor Murdoch, twice awarded the Military Cross for bravery in World War I, would accuse the Anzacs of being killers (“Gallipoli Anzacs ‘killers’: lecturer, 27/3).

It would be interesting to see how the academics responsible for this nonsense would respond to a home invasion. While the academics responsible may enjoy academic freedom, perhaps the Murdoch clan still has the freedom to decide what institutions carry their name.

Peter R. Tredenick, Paddington, Qld

In war when two opposing armies fight in battle, the objective of the men of each army is to kill the men of the other army. It follows that the Anzacs and Turks who fought each other on Gallipoli were both “killers”.

Those who died at Gallipoli, in France or elsewhere were not the only casualties of that war. There were those who were maimed for life, and more perniciously, those that suffered from what we now know of as PTSD. This was the lingering effect that wrecked established marriages, made some unfit to rejoin the workforce and in some cases resulted in suicide. These consequences were felt by men on both sides.

Evan Evans, Lindisfarne, Tas

Unless Murdoch University academic Dean Azskielowicz believes Anzacs were a special case, it isn’t possible to argue that they were murderers because they killed people, unless you extend this logic, and its label, to all people who have fought in wars and have killed people.

I’m guessing Azskielowicz was following an ideology in asserting that Anzacs who killed people were murderers and that he didn’t intend his assertion to form this logical conclusion with its various implications. His clear bias in singling out Anzacs in this way is one good reason why his assessment should not sit alongside the traditional version, something he dismissed as “this other version of how we look at Anzacs”.

Lesley Cowie, Blackburn, Vic

Poverty in retirement

I don’t get Bill Shorten’s rhetoric about raising the minimum wage to a living wage because of claims it leaves people in poverty.

The minimum wage of $37,000 is $13,000 above the single age pension of $24,000, and a $1000 above the couples’ pension of $36,000. Is Shorten saying that pensioners are living in poverty too, but he is not doing anything about it?

And why is he attacking self-funded retirees already living below the taxpaying threshold? Surely this will push some near to poverty.

Neil Bach, Ringwood North, Vic

It seems that Bill Shorten and the Labor Party are reluctant to spell out the adverse effects of their planned policy initiatives. When presented with independent research evidence that the Labor policy of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 is likely to have devastating economic effects on Australians, Shorten and Mark Butler are completely dismissive of the research. When pressed to explain their views as to the likely effect of their policy, they say things like “we’ll have more to say on this before the election”.

On the Labor plan to deny franking credit refunds to self-funded retirees, Labor simply says that this will only affect “the big end of town”. When pressed on the question as to how many self-funded retirees will be affected, Labor MPs say they don’t have this information to hand. It would seem, based on the data, that more than a million self-funded retirees will be adversely affected. They can’t all be from the big end of town.

These responses seem designed to avoid having to provide details to voters and thereby avoid scrutiny of how Labor policies will adversely affect Australians.

Brian Barker, East Brisbane, Qld