Personal convictions
In my federal electorate my Labor MP makes much of her “personal” convictions regarding, for example, the human rights of asylum seekers, and then rocks up to parliament to vote directly against these convictions (Karen Barlow and Jason Koutsoukis, “Inside the Fatima Payman defection”, July 6-12). Her personal convictions play well during election campaigns, however. She is a great example of how the modern ALP fleeces progressive voters to get elected. I’m hoping Fatima Payman is just the first of many younger Labor MPs to begin voting with their consciences and vote in the manner their constituents expect them to.
– Michelle Goldsmith, Eaglehawk, Vic
Privilege of anonymity
Using parliamentary privilege to denounce and condemn at least has the benefit that we can see and hear who says it and just what they said. Not so with anonymous political sources – “a senior government figure”, “one MP”, “an unnamed Labor MP”. We don’t know who said it or just what they said. Such anonymous sources, many of them, are enthusiastically backgrounding against Senator Fatima Payman to discredit her, indeed to force her to resign from parliament. Yes, journalists need access to good inside information, but where is the line drawn? Speaking on the record, both Katy Gallagher and Bill Shorten have sanctimoniously declared that such was the purity of their own “moral consciences” that in Payman’s position they would resign. Their consciences do not extend to active support for the thousands of innocents of Gaza, nor to honesty about arms sales to Israel. Recently the moral consciences of Norway, Spain and Ireland have led to their recognition of the Palestinian state, but Australia is still waiting for… what?
– Rob Wills, Brisbane, Qld
Go with the votes
Another politician has deserted the party they stood for in the last federal election and gone to the cross benches as an independent. This has happened a number of times over the past few years, both in Tasmania and federally. Surely voters would not be impressed as they voted for them as a candidate standing for a major party, not as an independent. I may be cynical, but could it be these politicians went through the process of selection and election on behalf of the major party with a plan that at the earliest moment, and for any excuse, resign from the party and turn independent? In these cases, the next highest vote-getter for the major party concerned should replace the person who has resigned from the party, so that party still maintains the number of seats they had after the election.
– Alan Leitch, Austins Ferry, Tas
Stay the distance
Barry Jones’s and Bruce Wolpe’s analyses are enlightening (“The second coming of Donald Trump” and “The Biden conundrum”, July 6-12) but they both stop short of calling the result. If Joe Biden stays, he almost certainly loses. If he goes, the result is almost certainly the same. Biden has a good team and has shown determined leadership in getting things done; there’s still so much more he needs to do. Age is irrelevant: what matters more is truth, justice, integrity. Biden owes it to his country to stare down the ridicule and stay the distance. The wider world can no longer risk Trump: we need Wolpe’s “Comeback Geezer” to be Biden.
– Jenifer Nicholls, Armadale, Vic
Battleground for old men
With three school zones to negotiate between him and the pie shop, an unpopular call was made to cancel my late father’s driver’s licence. We suggested the price of his car could buy a lot of taxis and pies. In what can only be regarded as a move to outfox us, he sold his car to the taxi driver for peanuts. If he had access to a nuclear bomb, he probably would have used that too. It seriously is no country for old men.
– Sue Dellit, Austinmer, NSW
Be like Barry
For his article “The Second Coming of Donald Trump”, 91-year-old Barry Jones is to be congratulated for his observations and erudition. If we in Australia with our population of about 27 million can produce a man of that age with that level of wisdom, why can’t the US find just one person among more than 300 million with sufficient skills to run the country with wisdom and erudition? Trump and Biden do not qualify, for reasons already well known.
– Megwenya Matthews, North Turramurra, NSW
Letters are welcome: [email protected]
Please include your full name and address and a daytime telephone number.
Letters may be edited for length and content, and may be published in print and online. Letters should not exceed 150 words.
This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on July 13, 2024.
For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers.
We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth.
We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care,
on climate change, on the pandemic.
All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers.
By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential,
issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account
politicians and the political class.
There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this.
In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world,
it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.