Senator Jim Molan should be top of the ticket — on merit alone

Scott Morrison should insist that Jim Molan be placed at the top of the NSW Senate ticket.

Anyone reading Greg Sheridan’s compelling treatment of Jim Molan being allocated an unwinnable position on the NSW Liberal Senate ticket should hope that everyone in the Liberal Party does indeed read The Australian — especially the Prime Minister (“Liberal machine burns its best and brightest”, 29/11).

Molan should be given the first spot on merit alone. The Prime Minister must insist on it if he doesn’t want to alienate a further cohort of Coalition supporters. Failing this, serious voters should follow the advice of David Cook (Last Post, 29/11) and themselves vote one for Molan.

Ron Spielman, Paddington, NSW

The dumping of Jim Molan by the Liberals in NSW will be one of the last nails driven into the Coalition’s coffin. One of Australia’s genuine heroes, lauded internationally, has been cast aside along with a lifetime of service to his country. This speaks volumes about the disloyalty that has permeated the Liberal Party and makes you wonder what has happened to politicians with the courage of their convictions and their loyalty to the cause. I don’t think this lot would even be a credible opposition.

Don Portors, Mooloolaba, Qld

As the carcass of the Liberal Party sinks into the swamp of oblivion, the sacrifice of Jim Molan is an indicator of how low it has sunk. The swamp dwellers who committed this act are not fit to govern. At a time when we are facing considerable challenges, our leaders are too busy destroying each other to govern in the name of the people who elected them.

Jim Wilson, Beaumont, SA

No need for an ICAC

As Chris Merritt so persuasively argues, there is no need for yet another federal corruption or integrity body and certainly not one based on the NSW version that has abused its powers — and not only in relation to crown prosecutors (“Trials of a national ICAC”, 29/11).

Several of its completely innocent victims were unfairly found guilty in the court of public opinion through the ICAC trifecta: the parade of shame, the show trial and the leaks to a favoured media outlet. This model is inefficient and expensive. If an investigation seems to justify a prosecution, the DPP must start over again.

Our common law offers a peoples’ solution, since entrenched in the US Constitution so that the politicians can’t abolish it. This is the grand jury that hears evidence in secret. If there is a case, this flows efficiently into an open trial before a judge and jury. Why reinvent the wheel when the result is so fourth rate?

David Flint, Bondi Beach, NSW

Rainy day facts

Apparently, a Bureau of Meteorology spokeswoman said Wednesday’s rain in NSW was a “once every 100 years’’ occurrence, noting that comprised 100mm in less than two hours (“Two dead as rains wreak havoc”, 29/11).

Elsewhere, BoM NSW manager Anne Farrell was quoted “expecting” the intensity and duration to be a once a century event. Expectations are hardly what scientist do — they check data. The BoM website doesn’t provide checks on 15-minute, or hourly rain, but has data on rainfall for Observatory Hill dating from 1858 — about 60,000 days.

Since 1858, there have been 127 days with more than 100mm of rain, so the 105.6mm hardly looks exceptional — it was Sydney’s 107th wettest day in 160 years. The rate of such days has not changed in 160 years; the greatest occurrence was for 1849-58 (17 occurrences).

My guess is BoM is feeding us exaggerations about “extreme event” frequency to justify its narrative about climate change, and the need to spend fortunes to ameliorate such. It would seem we have been and are being sold a lemon, and the money could be better spent on almost anything else.

Richard Sicree, Armadale, Vic