Ross McGillivray writes: What I find interesting about Sam Bankman-Fried (“Sam Bankman-Fried, a puffed-up messiah who took the gullible down with him“) is that he has been tried and convicted about a year after being exposed as a fraud. Just as Bernie Madoff was.
In Australia the investigation would be likely to take years, and then the regulator would try to cut a deal to avoid putting the case to a jury (too hard for them to understand) and the accused would be likely to basically walk free with a ban on company directorships for a token period. And his assets will be somehow untouchable having been transferred to somebody else.
Our corporate crime laws are a joke.
It’s all in the name
Colin Ross writes: The problem for the Productivity Commission is the name (“All eyes on Danielle Wood as Chalmers brings Productivity Commission to heel”). The factors that make up the classical definition of productivity are so subjective as to make the measurement meaningless.
Take, for example, hours worked. There are hundreds of thousands of tradespeople, small-business owners and farmers who have never filled out a timesheet in their lives, let alone volunteer and unpaid work.
Perhaps it should be called the Efficiency Commission, with a concentration on clearly defined and overt methods of a cost-benefit analysis of all government programs. This would make it easier to push back against ministerial interference.
Making your voice heard
Janus Bonkowski writes: It amazes me that the issue of lobbyists did not come up in the Indigenous Voice to Parliament campaign — it would have been a perfect target (“Who’s lobbying whom? When it comes to alcohol, tobacco, food and gambling firms, we’re in the dark”). After all, the Voice as a body would have been a form of lobby group for Indigenous peoples — the perfect riposte to all that “one-man one-vote” nonsense.
Lobbyists give the lie to the contention that we all have equal rights to approach the government. Unless that would have been too close for comfort for our politicians. Each and every one of them has snouts in that gravy train.
Ready for action
Angela Smith writes: Suffering some inconvenience or disruption from non-violent climate action is the inevitable consequence of governments’ inaction on climate change (“Jail time, climate change, and the philosophy of protest”). As long as the federal government continues to approve new and expanded fossil-fuel projects, subsidises the industry and fails to decarbonise at the speed required to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change, strong non-violent action is essential.
Roger Clifton writes: Recent prosecution of climate protesters in Western Australia reminds us that we need to organise for the long haul. At the moment, we clearly need lawyers of conscience to guide the actions of activists — or at least the boundaries to action. Other professions are needed to lend their weight too: chemists for synthetic fuels; songwriters to spread the sentiment, and so on.
Achieving the total extinction of fossil fuels worldwide is the goal that we must hold unquestionable, driven by the science. We have a long way to go, with milestones to be achieved and passed. One ordeal that the movement must survive is a widespread betrayal to allow natural gas. The concerned public is ambivalent about natural gas and among our own ranks there is widespread hesitation to declare that gas must go.
My country, right or wrong
Sandra Bradley writes: Only a person who has walked in another person’s shoes really understands the migrant experience (“Australian journalists need to do better when it comes to reporting on migration”).
But it’s not all about emigrating. Some of us have to choose which country we want to be permanently in — the tug and pull of having to choose threatens every happy moment, every moment. I just relinquished citizenship of one country today — the country of my birth. I feel like I have been skinned alive. I am so fortunate to have another country that has welcomed me with open arms for decades — but the loss is deep.
Journalists should report on all of the reasons why — the rules that change without your knowledge until you learn of them and then have to make a choice — and almost always, money lies at the heart of it. We are citizens of this planet and don’t belong to any one country. It’s time for a global passport.
Peace be with you
Steve Brennan writes: As far as I’m concerned Anthony Albanese’s performance on China is the one thing he’s actually excelling in (“Disgruntled Sinophobes have to stomach Albo’s patient work healing China relations”).
The last thing Australia needs or wants, or the entire world for that matter, is a war with China. The United States is the most dangerous actor in the world today and has been for decades. At the other end of the spectrum we have Albanese’s devotion to AUKUS — which I think he’s done to keep the Americans onside. (I’m hoping the dysfunctional state of the American political landscape means the AUKUS deal won’t be approved.)
In reality Australia/Albanese is playing a significant role in calming geopolitical tensions in our sphere, I believe, so he’s an actor for peace not war, and that’s what this world needs more of.
Malcolm Durant writes: I think the comment in the article about “the adult presence in the room” sums it up. I liked a Chinese saying I heard on ABC RN: “Gentlemen seek harmony — not uniformity.” I guess in the translation “gentlemen” means people of high repute.
