With defence alliances, it should be one for all and all for one

While we should not forget the weak response our government produced for a serious display of contempt for Australia by China, we also should remember that we are not really capable of making a strong response; we are a minnow in a big ocean (“Chinese ships go west as PM opens fire”, 4/3).

I think we should attempt to use our defence-related alliances in a way that can show significantly stronger responses. We should work with AUKUS, ANZUS, the Five Eyes and the Quad nations to agree that an attack, disrespect or bullying of one will be met by a response from all. It makes the alliances stronger, it protects all members and sends a strong message to those who want to bully or disrespect one member, and would be at no financial cost.

In the current instance, our strongest response is basically to haul the relevant ambassador in for dressing down. Big deal. But if the US, Britain, Japan, India, Canada and New Zealand also called in the relevant ambassadors for a dressing down, that reinforces the strength of our networks. That sends a much stronger message. If our alliances mean anything, I am sure all could agree to some action on behalf of them.

Mary M. Ancich, Birchgrove, NSW

I have been wondering how the Virgin Australia pilot heard the live-fire warning from the Chinese warships. Did the pilot understand Chinese language, in which case Australian air travellers were very lucky not to have been shot down? Did the Chinese broadcast in English, the language of the air? Very curious.

Jill Johnson, Malvern, Vic

Power for food

I still remember the great relief we felt in 1963 when our farm was connected to the electricity grid (“Price to pay: hand that feeds nation bites PM”, 4/3).

No more dirty, heavy, corrosive batteries to deal with, or dreading the possibility of a lighting plant failure in the middle of seeding. The joy of being able to use all the electric gizmos that had been available in the city for years. But now we are told we must go back to the future and return to being responsible for generating our own power.

Last December we enjoyed a family holiday in The Philippines. During that time power supply was the last thing on my mind, but on the drive back to Manila to catch the flight home I noticed a building topped with solar panels, and reality suddenly hit me.

This was the only building so equipped that I noticed in The Philippines during our entire three-week vacation.

This was a stark reminder that individuals generating their own power is a project for the wealthy.

It is clear that by encouraging citizens to provide their own power supply, Labor governments are abrogating one of their principal responsibilities. This looks like an acknowledgment that their power generation policy is a failure.

Bruce Harvey, Moorine Rock, WA

Lifting productivity

Your editorial (“Policy to boost living standards”, 4/3) outlined the Menzies Research Centre’s analysis of ways to lift productivity, which was explained as the only way to increase prosperity for the country.

The editorial gave the broad example of how a 0.3 per cent productivity increase could increase wages by $11,000 a year. The election will hinge on the issue of cost of living and this is the kind of real-life information voters need to hear. The suggested productivity reforms read like a list of what the government is not doing and what the Coalition should come out fighting for.

Labor says it’s not changing a thing about policies and is launching a spendathon of anti-productivity gifts for voters to prove it.

The nation’s worst productivity killer is the unstoppable renewables electricity failure, destined to continue in a hung parliament of Labor-Greens-teals ideology. This is up for a pre-election chop from anyone game to say it.

All contenders for the election should explain their past and planned behaviours on the Menzies list of reforms the country urgently needs.

Betty Cockman, Dongara, WA

Way of working world

Peter Dutton is out of touch with the world of work in the post-Covid world of the 21st century.

Most large companies are happy for staff to work from home three to four days a week. It saves them money, with less desk space needed, no fights over meeting rooms booked but not used, less tea/coffee/milk, less toilet paper used. Printers are hardly ever used.

Today’s teams are not all co-located. A manager may have direct reports in different cities, so whether at home or in the office, they are not in the same building.

As well, the use of technology, combined with high city rents, has led to many young workers moving to regional cities, and working from home means they can keep their jobs.

Margaret Ludowyk, Brunswick, Vic