Treasurer needs courage, not rhetoric, if he wants true reform

Treasurer needs courage, not rhetoric, if he wants true reform

Jim Chalmers’s reform speech at the National Press Club was truly a spectacle to behold (“Chalmers’ moment of truth”, 19/6). The Treasurer invited interested parties to submit ideas that are “specific and practical” but his speech states the outcomes of the reform roundtable will be a list of “guiding reform principles”, “shaping the direction” and “consensus” (especially around losers in the tax system). Chalmers used the word “consensus” nine times in his speech and answers. He wants someone to blame if it falls apart. He has shown himself to not be a bold leader with courage as he proclaims this reform will show him to be.

Joanne Foreman, Mansfield, Qld

It’s all very well for Jim Chalmers to say in one breath that we need to think broadly and not through “the prism of sectoral, state or vested interests” but in another breath to “create opportunities to lower the tax burden on workers”. It is common knowledge that 10 per cent of the highest-earning people in Australia pay 80 per cent of the taxes that go to federal government. That leaves 90 per cent paying 20 per cent of the tax collected for the federal government, and Chalmers proposes to make it less.

It’s understood that the tax paid by the lowest earners in the country is more than offset by the allowances given so their tax paid is actually negated. Doing the mental arithmetic, Chalmers is going to reform the tax system where for every worker’s dollar paid, 10 per cent of Australians currently pay $4. As they used to say in Yes, Minister: “That’s a brave move, Minister!”

Rosemary McGrath, Kensington, SA

Keating’s ire

If China invades Taiwan, Paul Keating says ALP members – its grassroots – will not support Australia being dragged into a war between the US and China. So, in short, we should abandon democratic Taiwan. Questions of morality are of no consequence. In 1942, John Curtin turned to the US for support when Japanese forces were at our doorstep. He placed Australia’s armed forces under US control. And the people overwhelmingly endorsed Curtin’s decision. Is that history to go out the window to suit the branch members?

Paul Everingham, Hamilton, Qld

Paul Keating’s words in The Australian on Thursday are a comfort to so many hardworking anti-AUKUS Labor Against War members. We are the ones who do the election ground work, attend meetings, pass motions, which don’t get heard at National Conference. We shudder at the thought of Richard Marles leading us towards war with China as he smiles with Pete Hegseth. When will he use our Pine Gap power (is there any?) to assert our independence from US?

Julanne Sweeney, Hackney, SA

Where’s Uncle Sam?

I agree with Foreign Minister Penny Wong that Iran must come to the table and stop any nuclear program because that is the “fastest way out of danger for the globe, for the region, and for the Iranian people” (“Iran must come to the table on ceasefire, Penny Wong says” 18/6).

The most effective way to achieve that is for the US to now join Israel’s military efforts to secure the most favourable negotiating outcome. This wouldn’t be a US “forever war” like Iraq or Afghanistan, with a long commitment to nation-building. It would be one night’s attack against Fordow, Iran’s best-protected nuclear enrichment facility. Wong should heed the words of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in thanking Israel for taking the necessary initiative to rid the world of the Iranian nuclear threat. Israel doesn’t expect gratitude. But as Merz pointed out, “this is the dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us. I can only say I have the greatest respect for the Israelis, having the courage to do this” (“Merz steps up, crunch point near” 19/6).

Anthony Bergin, Reid, ACT

When Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, proclaims to his followers: “When you chant ‘Death to America!’, it is not just a slogan, it is a policy”, do we dismiss this as blustering hyperbolic rant, or respect it as credible? If the latter, then a nuclear-armed Iran is not only an existential threat to Israel, but also – particularly as a member of the nuclear-armed, totalitarian axis of Russia, China and North Korea – a credible threat to America. And, potentially, also the wider West, already assaulted by various cohorts within, who despite benefiting from the opportunities of Western pluralist democracy have no respect, love or loyalty for Western society and align themselves with those who seek its overthrow.

However, should Trump seize this opportunity of a weakened Iran to employ America’s bunker-buster bombs and smash its nuclear weaponry aspirations, could it risk being the very action that precipitates retaliatory nuclear attack from elsewhere? Or is the Iranian regime out in the cold on a friendless limb?

Deborah Morrison, Malvern, Vic