Queensland budget shows that Labor hasn’t forgotten how to spend

Despite promising to pay down Queensland’s huge debt last year, Treasurer and Deputy Premier Jackie Trad has done the opposite. How could Queensland go from a surplus to an enormous $88 billion debt in such a short time? It’s because many politicians feel they need to spend to get re-elected.

Labor politicians also need to pay off their unions by excessive increases to public service numbers and costs. Passing on the debt of $30,000 per Queensland taxpayer to future generations isn’t right but it doesn’t seem to worry them. Do not let spending other peoples’ money get in the way of a politician trying to get re-elected.

Lee Smith, Kenmore, Qld

Taking a long-term perspective, Queensland’s budget points at a depressing scenario. Burgeoning debt, an ever-growing and costly public service, and very few if any effective productivity measures. Yes, health and education benefited, but at what cost? It is the old story — Labor seems to be good at spending, and then requiring a conservative government to mop up afterwards. Until that sinks in, Queenslanders will have to grin and bear what amounts to a giant financial roller coaster.

Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA

Reef is a litmus test

The majestic Great Barrier Reef is on a slippery slope given that it is an important indicator of environmental health (“Green activists killing tourism on the reef”, 11/6). While agreeing that the reef’s health status is not black or white, Kevin Bryne’s comment that the reef “is being used as a proxy for the ­climate wars ­debate”, is misleading. It is not a proxy — it’s part of the real deal. A litmus test of sorts.

I wonder if instead of promoting an unhelpful and divisive blame culture, a proactive attitude could be taken to foster collaboration across sectors. To partner up to raise awareness of and raise funds to protect the reef. I’d be willing to bet a dollar on a market where tourists want to protect the reef for future generations, to feel that instead of seeing its demise, they were part of a solution.

Byrne needs an inspiring story with foresight that recognises that there are no jobs on a dead reef.

Maree Grenfell, Melbourne, Vic

Supposedly democratic

Janet Albrechtsen cites some egregious examples of suppression of free speech by supposedly democratic institutions in recent times, including the Alberta Human Rights Commission action against Ezra Levant for publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed (“The speech censors given a free media pass”, 12/6).

She could have cited a similar case in Victoria. Two pastors — one born in Pakistan who had studied the Koran in depth — conducted a seminar in March 2002 on Koran teaching about jihad and women. Three Muslims attended anonymously and later complained that they had been offended and insulted, an offence under a new law ostensibly designed to promote religious harmony.

A costly court battle ensued, with the parties finally agreeing to disagree — which they would have done in the first place had it not been for the law.

Roslyn Phillips, Tea Tree Gully, SA

The timeliness of Janet Albrechtsen’s warning of the threat to free speech can’t be overstated. It is an urgent call to Australia. The aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought. That confines imagination and its expression because no words will exist to enable either.

Humpty Dumpty anticipated Orwell in asserting “when I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean”. But who is to be master? Though words be slippery and thought be viscous, those who care to think and speak freely ought to heed Albrechtsen’s call to resist oppression of speech and thought lest both be confined beyond redress.

Ian Dunlop, Hawks Nest, NSW