Selection on merit would be fine if that was the real arbiter

Politics is a profession that represents the general population and so quotas should reflect that.

Politics is one of the few places where the profession is meant to represent the general population and consequently a quota based on gender would more accurately reflect the electorate.

If you seriously believe that men are superior to women, the idea of a quota is absurd. On the other hand if you believe that women are equal to men then a quota based on gender might just provide us with parliamentarians significantly better than some of the suit polishers that now inhabit federal parliament.

The top 50 per cent of women and the top 50 per cent of men would have to be an improvement on the existing mix where the lower echelons of men barely rate a mention.

The idea of merit would be all well and good if that was the genuine arbiter, unfortunately the attitude of some men towards recognising women’s strengths and the innate bias towards other males makes that an unlikely situation. The fact that so few women are elected proves that merit is not the arbiter and that other factors are in play. For anyone to assume that a woman was elected simply to fill a quota rather than being merit based while meeting an acceptable quota, reveals an archaic attitude that women are inferior.

Roger Bridgland, West Hobart, Tas

No progress on drugs

For years we have had debates about how to reduce the risk for those who take drugs, with little progress. The drug industry is one that involves huge amounts of costs to the country in border protection and policing. It creates a class of criminal that makes a lot of money.

On the other side we have those who become addicted and take risks. They may die. They may become criminals to feed their habit. Again, this is a huge cost to society.

Instead of looking at injecting rooms and pill testing as partial solutions to the problem with drugs, why not get radical? Why don’t we have a single controlled source for manufacture and distribution of drugs? Why not allow those addicted to purchase safe drugs? I am not suggesting this is a perfect solution, nor am I suggesting we make drugs legal, but control in this way would reduce the costs and risks to society in significant ways.

Ray Whitfield, Mudgee, NSW

Universities exposed

Dyson Heydon’s article has neatly fingered unacceptable practices of universities (“Living up to the worthy ideals of a sainted namesake”, 5/1) Widely observed are bloated expensive bureaucracies, social deserts for students, dishonest student admission rules, erosion of academic performance standards, trivial curriculums, selfish and banal research, and the curtailment of freedom of speech.

All this is exacerbated as academic operations become less viable as full-time academic staff are replaced by low-cost, single-purpose, less-qualified casual staff. There is a race to the bottom under the marketing and revenue-growth imperatives governing our universities.

Roger Juchau, Balmain, NSW

Taxpayers outnumbered

The piece by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg points out Labor’s high taxing policies in an attempt to make taxpayers think twice about voting Labor (“Labor’s tax grab will hurt our economy”, 5/1). People who pay tax already get it, and are apprehensive about a future Labor government. It’s the people who do not pay tax or who receive more in government benefits than they pay in tax who are going to bring back a Labor government.

These are the people who vote for their living in preference to working for it, including public servants. These people outnumber the people who work in the employment of business enterprises or the professions paying tax, or at least tax in excess of government benefits received.

Robert Harcourt, Hahndorf, SA