In Your Say, readers tell Crikey what they think about our stories. Today you get a laugh out of the former arts minister having a go at the current one.
On the dead hand of the Morrison era
Hayley Ricketson writes: There’s something ironic about how unpoetic, uninspired and unimaginative former arts minister Paul Fletcher’s criticism of the Labor government and its “lacklustre arts funding” is. If he ever thought his argument was going to hold water, he’s at best a fool, at worst someone very unfamiliar with how water vessels work.
But let’s be honest, who cares about Fletcher? He’s a watered-down politician with little to offer, certainly nothing for the arts. Broadly, it’s the Coalition’s disdain, disregard or downright ignorance that have failed the arts over its nine-year reign. No matter your politics, Tony Burke is a huge gulping breath of fresh air for the sector.
But let’s also be honest. It’s not just the Coalition — wider society and, dare I say it, sometimes artists themselves tend to downplay their role in the economy and Australian culture. It doesn’t seem to matter how often articles and reports demonstrate the value of the arts to the Australian economy as a roughly $15 billion industry connected to other industries such as hospitality and tourism. Nor does it seem to matter the number of concerts offered — and gratefully attended — when natural disaster strikes.
I believe government can and should lead on this, both rhetorically and in fair and meaningful policy. And money never hurts. We can all do more, from the individual artist, individual audience member, to commercial media, schools and corporate institutions.
Erik Kulakauskas writes: Paul Fletcher has a problem with amnesia. He has clearly forgotten that he was arts minister and part of a government which did bugger-all for the best part of 10 years. It was also a government that had little time and certainly no respect for the arts — consider its changes to financing university courses and the rubbish contention that students should be “job ready” on graduation.
With COVID there was very limited or no assistance to those in the arts. His idiotic comments are a reflection of Fletcher’s intellect (or lack thereof). I have taught at under- and post-graduate levels in finance and business at UNSW, USW and CSU and have had a long business career from CEO and board level. Fletcher is not fit for purpose.
On Optus, sorry not sorry
Stephen Saunders writes: The Optus newpaper “apology” is actually much worse than nothing, and the hitherto unknown Kelly Bayer Rosmarin should be sacked. If Optus really was “deeply sorry”, it would quickly have deleted any data older than two years, including mine. Just to rub it in, Optus sent me an “urgent update” claiming it was “protecting” my data. Yeah right, by leaving open an expressway for L-plate hackers to motor on through.
Denise Marcos writes: Perhaps the Optus CEO and board saw Clive Palmer’s election blurbs last May and observed what a roaring success newspaper ads are. I jest. Like most Australians I do not subscribe to hard copy news so I saw the ad in online forums. Not only did it reek of insincerity but the absence of specifics for redress was telling. Optus continues to make bad judgments and its corporate credibility is gone … unlike the ultimately culpable CEO.
Greg Webb writes: I am one of the 10,000 who had their personal details published by the hacker. They are: full name; date of birth; postal address; email address; driver’s licence number (but not card number). Someone with the above information can launch three types of attack: attempt to reach one of my online accounts by guessing my password; by telephone; online. I have changed all my online account passwords; I have requested a new driver’s licence; I’ve taken out a membership in Credit Savvy which has allowed me to freeze my credit rating. This means any attempt to use my identifications should fail. I can unfreeze the rating when I want to use my identification. I know this covers my licence but I’m not sure if passport and Medicare are included.
This is forever. I can’t easily change my name, where I live or my DOB. Politicians are only slowly waking up to this future.
Ross Hogan writes: I have compared the security processes of Westpac and Lifeblood (previously known as Red Cross), keeping in mind what the client stands to lose if a breach occurs. After the Optus breach, I changed my password on my Westpac account — new password has to be six (not minimum of six) characters including a number and a letter, no special characters and no dual authentication. I recalled my recent password process with Lifeblood — a whopping 12-character password, including numbers, letters and special characters plus two-factor authentication. While I appreciate that Lifeblood is doing its best to secure data and limit access, it is a pity some banks are not practising what they are preaching.
On an age-old problem: caring for the elderly
Jennifer Pearce writes: When people — let’s change that to the reality — when women are on the kind of wages paid by the aged care sector, they spend most of it on food, housing, power, childcare and getting to work. That whole cost-of-living basket isn’t reflecting what those women have to spend their money on, because there is no discretionary income.
When you’re sitting in your own excrement, with your skin inflamed and stinging, when your bedsores are eating you up with pain, when you’re hungry because your food is below the level of malnutrition (about 50% of aged care residents suffer from malnutrition), when you hit a buzzer because you have to go to the toilet in the night and there’s no one to answer it and you’re sick with shame at wetting the bed, then tell me those staff don’t deserve every penny of the very large pay rise that it will take to attract workers to the sector.
Dale Turner writes: Why not consider this industry a “trade”? Apprenticeship to ensure quality skills. Regulated skill sets. Value them as you would a plumber, electrician, welder etc. Raise income to match trade payments. Business set up to hire out workers.
Helen Chadwick writes: Sure, paying women more (as they make up the majority of care workers) will help. It will, over time, reduce the gender pay gap — but it won’t close it. We have to ask why “care work” is “women’s work”? Apart from the pay issue it appears “caring” — for children, older citizens and those with disabilities — is societally seen as women’s work. Yet apart from breastfeeding, men can do this work too. So we need to change “societal norms”. We need to make men’s employment patterns more flexible over a lifetime of work. Apart from those with disabilities, the young and old don’t need care forever — the young grow up and the old die — so within a family structure if caring is done at home and families either do all the caring, or take some share, then men should take equal share.
Many older folk prefer to stay in their homes rather than move into facility so care needs to be provided by well-trained people. And money will be needed to modify homes. For those who want to stay at home but theirs is not suitable, government needs to help pay to build smaller, suitably equipped homes to rent or buy. Whatever we do, it’s not one size fits all.
Rosie Elliott writes: Currently you can have homecare or residential aged care. Homecare can be very lonely. Residential care is usually meaningless and poorly catered for by underpaid, under-skilled staff. Many of the residents have a lifetime of home work and relational skills, but are not even allowed to make a cup of tea. I have looked after my mother for six years and recently put her in residential care. For the first four years she was quite capable of doing some jobs, with help, and was still very socially skilful, now not so much. So I propose we build inviting villages for the ageing where the fitter aged ones do meaningful care for the less able, supervised by well-paid nursing and social work staff. This could be more fun and cheaper than paying for your own lonely castle. Join up with a few of your old friends…
Andrew Green writes: What is not being addressed is the rapid rise in dementia since 1990. When I was young, I did not know any old people with dementia — and they stayed in their homes much longer. Also, when a single wage was sufficient for a household, it was common for frail grandparents to live with their children. Perhaps it is time to examine why the demand for aged care is so large.
On being alert for a threat to democracy
Matteo Bernobich writes: The danger stems from the stupidity that Australians — 14th on the CO2 emissions chart — think wasting billions on a climate war we already lost 10-plus years ago is winnable. The simple reason is that the planet has tipped into a negative phase releasing CO2 and methane as it heats up and great swaths of forests burn.
Malcolm Harrison writes: As Leslie Cannold observes, Australia has a basis in egalitarianism. This has not changed, as far as I can see. But egalitarianism does not equate to democracy. Nor indeed do we have democracy in Australia, or anywhere else in the Anglosphere. What we have is called democracy but in reality we have two corporate entities — the Labor Party and the Liberal National Coalition — vying for our votes. We outsource our governance to these two parties, and they in turn have a power sharing arrangement. They take turns in governing us. They say they are representing us, but there is little to support this idea in practice. We have little or no control or influence over either party, what promises they make or which policies they follow.
As for the right/left divide, it seems that a polar shift is happening. Increasingly the right is defending political freedoms while the left is becoming more totalitarian. I expect many debates about “democracy” in the coming years. We have had universal suffrage for about 100 years, and by many people’s reckoning, including mine, the system does not produce good governance or good outcomes.
On a memorial for whose who COVID killed
April Patterson Harper writes: There should be a memorial for all those who died of COVID-19, with a special section for those who died trying to save the lives of others. This would also help address what I regard as a disturbing absence of media coverage re. ongoing deaths and disablement. It is not the public that has become insensate as is sometimes alleged. The reason is the absence of media focus.
If something in Crikey has pleased, annoyed or inspired you, let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
