Western defence should be priority as new axis emerges in Iran, Russia, North Korea and China

Foreign editor Greg Sheridan is right to warn of an axis of evil emboldened by a weak White House and to call out the craven moral cowardice being exhibited by many politicians and media outlets (“As alarm sounds over axis, West hits snooze”, 31/10). After World War II, the UN was set up and the state of Israel was established as the Jewish homeland. “Never again” was the pledge. Well, in 2023, never again seems to mean “right now”.

How difficult can it be for Anthony Albanese to publicly condemn Hamas’s atrocities? Or to pronounce that he stands with his six predecessors who exhibit much needed moral clarity? By failing to do so he diminishes himself and shames not just himself but the whole nation.

John McLeod, Sunshine Coast, Qld

Greg Sheridan gets it right on the current position of the West in terms of being able to present a credible deterrent capable of defending not only its respective national borders but in keeping a sense of balance and respectful normality across the globe. But may I suggest the problem with the West is even deeper than Sheridan argues. In both world wars, Western nations mobilised with relative ease. I very much doubt this would be the case today. We only have to look at what’s happening with the Israeli conflict; how divided the people are; how religion and birthplace appear to take priority over all else.

Australia is already experiencing great difficulty recruiting the numbers of young men and women needed to maintain our depleted defence force. Imagine if the balloon went up tomorrow. On top of this, governments of both persuasions have been tardy in defence spending. We are not the only country in this position but we certainly are a leader in this area.

It’s time for our government and the community at large to give thought to our current situation and where it might lead us in the event of a major global or regional conflict.

John George, Terrigal, NSW

A modest voice?

If nothing else Stan Grant is honest (“Voice was never ‘modest’: Grant”, 31/10). The Australian people were well ahead of him. They instinctively recognised that the proposition represented a seismic change in the way the nation was to be governed, they recoiled at the idea that a subset of the community would be bestowed an exclusive right in the Constitution, and they took umbrage at the lack of detail as to how the voice would work in practice. In short, they didn’t trust its standard-bearers, and Grant was one of those. He sees the result of the referendum through a vexatious prism. He laments that his ancestors – black and white – have been “buried for a second time”. However, he and his fellow travellers in the Yes camp may reflect how it is that they continue to prosper in a country they seemingly have little regard for.

Kim Keogh, Claremont, WA

Debating IR

It would seem Nicholas Lee, chief executive of Adecco in Australia, has forgotten that compliance is the cost of doing business in a country (“Employers fear ‘massive’ IR compliance hit”, 31/10). Without it, workers are left to the tender mercies of the economy while labour hire firms such as Adecco risk losing the right person for the job as a result. The complexity is not found in applying a “filter or lens” to every employee but in realising the value each worker brings. It may be true that not all workers want permanence, but to those who do the proposed IR changes give them something to work towards.

Anders Ross, Heidelberg, Vic

Environmental realism

Australia’s environmental policies are increasingly looking like an ideological-driven mess. In the past few days we have seen the announcement that large-scale aerial shooting of brumbies will recommence in Kosciuszko National Park, ostensibly to save the natural environment and some plants. Yet it is apparently OK to bulldoze large areas of pristine native forest to construct wind farms. Hundreds of hectares of prime farmland near Wangaratta are now to be smothered by solar panels, again under the pretext of saving the planet. If that is not enough, the marine environment is set to be sacrificed to massive offshore wind farm developments, again to save the planet but at huge cost to marine life, particularly whales and seabirds.

While Australia bends over backwards to showcase its green credentials to the world in shifting to renewable energy, the natural environment and the many species that share that environment are being wantonly sacrificed. That is before you even get started on the massive disposal problem in years to come when the solar panels and wind turbines deteriorate.

Where is the realism, compassion and practicality in all this? Where do the politicians promoting these policies live? Clearly not where the damage is being wrought.

Mary Hackshaw, Northwood, Vic