Strength in numbers
Dr Deb Campbell writes: What sort of women does the Liberal Party actually attract and recruit (“Liberals’ contempt for women suggests a party uninterested in winning any more”)? The words “crumb maiden” have gained some currency in some quarters and they highlight the type of women who have had what passes for success in the Libs in recent years, women content with secondary and partial influence rather than exercising and accepting responsibility for real power. That they are content with this role must mean they really do not believe in their ability. Many women who wish to wield real power end up leaving e.g. Julia Banks federally, Catherine Cusack in NSW et al. (Will Bridget Archer be next to become an independent?)
Maybe the intellectually old white men and compliant women need to go — or at least accept that some women do want — and are prepared to take on — power and responsibility.
Michelle Mediati writes: The Liberal Party should most definitely have quotas, but they should be legislated and with sanctions. Australia is too slow moving to increase gender parity; we’re steadily slipping down the scale, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. According to recent gender parity reports it’ll take another 124 years to reach gender parity if we keep going the way we are.
Australia needs to look at what other countries are doing to achieve better results, particularly our closest cultural neighbour, New Zealand, which sits at number six in the world for gender parity. Even Rwanda sets an example by including legislated quotas and committing to educating men and women on politics and how to be part of it. There’s no easy answer but if we begin by modelling the behaviour of those countries doing well in addressing gender parity that would be a start, rather than relying on individual parties.
Ian James Bank writes: Numbers must be lifted but that will be achieved only with a parliamentary culture that does not alienate women.
On for young and old
Roger Clifton writes: Ageing hippies beware: the oncoming generation is not on board with the tradition of token reductions (“If a 16-year-old can join the army, they should be allowed to vote”). Instead it wants total replacement of all fossil fuels. Young people may well prosecute denialists who make excuses for continuing the use of gas. Renewables must find alternative means of storing power between the vagaries of weather, or be forced to resolve their fears of nuclear.
Allen Brown writes: In view of the mess my generation has made of the world, I say give the kids the vote. They certainly won’t do worse, and they’ll probably do a damned sight better with their future on this near-ruined planet in mind.
Vote of ‘No thanks’
Glen Davis writes: Margot Saville realistically adopts the convention of speaking of the Coalition as a single major party (“Coalition, Labor at a crossroads as major parties ‘broken beyond repair’”).
The two major parties recorded their lowest-ever share of the vote in 2022: just under 70%.
The trend has yet to reach its zenith. Voters are rebelling against party corruption starting with donations in exchange for favours and ending in favours in breach of member and ministerial oaths to act in the public interest. The sanction of Scott Morrison is just the start of actions penalising past breaches.
Second, Australia would have better federal government with a “hung parliament” than with either of the two major parties holding an absolute majority. Voters are revealing their growing understanding of this truth. “Two-party politics” was seen 50 years ago as a source of “strong government”. It has been corrupted and the independent candidates have adopted campaign planks chosen for the biggest of major party weaknesses: “climate change, political integrity, gender equity”.
Last but not least, the major parties are not trusted to manage their own reform. The mechanisms by which the major parties reached their policies, their priorities and their campaign planks are now understood to be part of the corruption. Donors are publicly understood to be sources of corruption. So reform cannot be reached by internal debates, internal votes, or any party management system.
When the Hun no longer shines
Jackson Harding writes: Of course there is still value in the Hun (“RIP the Hun, born 1998, died November 26 2022, buried in a Danslide”). No one does football (the Victorian/Australian kind) like the Herald Sun. As for the rest of it — well, as they say in the classics, no self-respecting fish would be seen dead in it.
Gail Wilson writes: The Hun is long past its use-by date, like a discarded fish rotting in the sun. It has been on life support for years, propped up by its sports reporters, especially AFL coverage in a footy-mad state. People in cafés and supermarkets will pick it up and read the back half-a-dozen pages before discarding. The remaining three-quarters of the paper is full of hate, misinformation, propaganda and Harvey Norman ads.
Bryan Lewis writes: I recall the saying “If you can’t think, buy the Herald but if you can’t read, buy The Sun“. Rupert combining the two seemed poetic!
Chinese whispers
Malcolm Harris writes: Just a note of caution about what some mainstream media in the West are calling “unprecedented” protests in China. According to some reports there are on any given day an estimated 300 protests occurring. Mostly these are local and dealt with at a local level. The two major protests mentioned by the writer (“White paper and ‘Good, good, good’: how China’s protesters are evading Beijing’s censorship on social media”), the fire in Xinjiang and the bus incident in Guizhou, were caused by local events that seem to have no connection with the so-called A4 protests.
These latter protests — some of which took place within sight of US embassies, and which we are told occurred organically at the same time, spreading to overseas locations within hours, according to global media — look extremely suspicious. Based on the video footage, many seem to have very small numbers, about 50 to 100 protesters. This in cities with populations in the millions. Hardly unprecedented.
Your writer, Stevie Zhang, notes: “Counter-narratives have flowed on to social media platforms quickly. The most common line is that these protests are being pushed by outside agitators and foreign forces, including claims that those who have shown up to hold white paper sheets have been paid to do so.” Zhang pours some scorn on this idea, but to me it looks very much the work of Western (i.e. American) agencies taking advantage of the legitimate protests in Xinjiang and Guizhou.
The A4 gimmick appearing at various locations at the same time does not support the notion that this was all the spontaneous outpourings by the Chinese population. Via its National Endowment for Democracy (NED) organisation, the US has several of these kinds of protests going on in various places around the globe, although the mainstream media never mention them.
Another thing, while the Western media are salivating over “unprecedented” protests in China, it is pointedly ignoring the election results in Taiwan, which are a major blow to US geopolitical goals in that country, but good news for the rest of us, especially Australians. Why are they being ignored?
Truth be told
Robert Vaughan writes: I find Zali Steggall’s electoral disinformation bill very disturbing (“ ‘Stop the lies’: inside the plan to outlaw political disinformation in Australia”). It will need an “authority” of some sort to rule on what is true and/or appropriate information in an election campaign. Sounds good and wholesome, eh? But please, may I be trusted to exercise my own good judgment?
Bill Wallace writes: I support any step likely to reduce misinformation and falsehoods in politics. This bill is a useful step, but to really clean up the following should be undertaken.
- No external political advertising/comment one month before voting
- The electoral commission should vet, publish and advertise a fact sheet for each candidate (along the lines of): their background; principles they stand for; what their priorities are if elected; associations with any groups.
With those, external political advertising will be a thing of the past and there’ll be no need for taxpayer refunds.
Gross Nationals product
Barry Welch writes: In deciding to oppose the Voice without even seeing what it will be, the National Party is piddling before its water comes (“On an Indigenous Voice, the Nationals cloak doing nothing in paternalism”).
Prime mover
Rosemary Jacob writes: This man David Pocock is a really worthwhile politician (“A real piece of work”).
The right thing to do
Bernard McKenna writes: I support aid money being directed to overseas projects on compassionate, justice, and pragmatic grounds (“Coalition’s China blunder — or how to get caught out on fair-weather xenophobia”). It should be a fundamental human instinct to want to help those in distress. The current condition of least developed countries (LDCs) is in large part the result of exploitation. Furthermore, Western industrialisation has been the major contributor to climate change either directly in the age of industrial capitalism or indirectly in the age of globalised capitalism (when we shifted “dirty” industries to other countries. China is now doing this too).
If Peter Dutton’s appalling bunch of self-serving spivs do not have the humanity or intellectual insight to accept the compassionate and justice grounds, they should at least accept the common sense of ensuring that our influence on LDCs will be enhanced if we are seen as generous. If we don’t, China will clearly fill the vacuum. Exhibit A: Solomon Islands.
Peter Halcomb writes: I emphatically believe we should be a leading international donor to the least developed countries. Being in the lead does a few important things. It is consistent with how we like to see ourselves (albeit not under the previous government). Let’s do it when there isn’t a local partisan agenda. We are a rich nation, and our fossil fuel exports are a large part of the problem. Giving aid helps secure our security, not leaving it to the last minute after others have entered the arena. It is morally appropriate to help and it gives us leverage with other countries and the UN.
Good cops/bad cops
Michael Walker writes: Most of Queensland’s police officers probably do a good job, but until the force adopts the same workplace system as every other Australian organisation, and dismisses employees guilty of repeated serious misconduct, nothing will change (“Good cop, bad cop: let’s not scapegoat one female police commissioner”). How many police have been given “managerial guidance”, and how many dismissed in the past 20 years? All police forces need to recognise that people who like to boss others around will be attracted to join, but are quite unsuitable. Bad apples must be removed.
If you’re feeling pleased, peed off or piqued, tell us about it 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.
