Archives: Letters to the Editor

Mehmet Ozalp‘s article helps inform readers who know little about the history of Western interference in Iran’s affairs, but he leaves out some key information, which leads his article to be biased toward the west, favouring as it does ‘regime change’, but not being clear how that will come about.

If a bigger picture were told, we might favour a ‘regime change’ in the west, too.

Being cognisant of more of the relevant details would help. These would include:
– the west supplying Iraq with chemical weapons to use against Iranian forces in the 80s
– the 1996 ‘Clean Break’ plan that makes clear the intentions of Israel and US neocons to ‘contain’ Iran
– the violence on 8 and 9 Jan committed against security forces and civilians by insurrectionists or rioters with support from Mossad and CIA (ABC article linked states about 500 security personnel killed)
– US Sec of Treasury Scott Bessent admitting the US deliberately collapsed the Iranian economy to cause widespread protests
– Senator Lindsey Graham’s support for a war on Iran
– support Iran has from Russia and China that will mean the war can only go badly for the US and allies – for everyone.

The late Dylan Thomas liked a cold beer or two on a hot day and once described an alcoholic as someone you don’t like that drinks more than you do.

About a year ago, I ran into a friend who asked how I was. “Donald Trump is driving me insane” I replied. “You should read Robert Reich,” she said. And ever since then I have read Reich’s daily blogs on Substack about the sheer awfulness of the Trump Administration.

This article about the appalling Kristi Noem and her Department of Homeland Security was particularly therapeutic because the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of ICE still make me weep. It’s not just their deaths but the unconstitutional manner in which they act. As Reich writes: ” Pulling people out of their homes in the middle of the night without search warrants. Arresting people without giving them due process of law to defend themselves. Putting innocent people into detention camps. Not giving them adequate food or medical care. Not letting their families know where they are. Sending them out of the country to brutal prisons in other lands. Even jailing children…”

America has always had porous borders to its south. Literally millions have walked or swum across the Rio Grande to get there. Some kind of border control was justified but not this! It is an outrage.

Cutting taxes is an easy road to popularity; increasing taxes requires a convincing presentation framework to demonstrate taxpayer value.
Labor must promote taxation reform as a program for social benefit: reducing the income tax burden for those who need support (eg wage-earners, particularly the younger taxpayers and the lower paid who struggle with cost of living pressures) while adding or increasing contributions from those who currently receive favourable treatment. These reforms would not be introduced simply to raise more funds, but to create greater tax equity and thus strengthen social cohesion. Possibilities include reducing those concessions seen as overly-generous, such as:
• Phasing out the capital gains tax discount, and negative gearing on multiple properties;
• Reforming the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax so it generates a fair return to Australia for the oil and gas extracted
And:
• Introducing a carbon tax to stimulate real emission reductions and help foster a safer climate future for today’s younger generations
• Restoring a measure of taxation on retirees’ pensions
• Creating an inheritance tax.

This government has a wonderful opportunity to help create a fairer Australia, and leave this as an enduring legacy: will it have the courage to grasp this nettle?

The recent analysis regarding Japan’s departure from its pacifist equilibrium raises vital concerns about regional stability. At first glance, the critique of Tokyo’s Five-Year Plan – aiming to elevate defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP by 2027 – might seem alarmist. Doubling a budget that traditionally hovered around 1 per cent represents a seismic shift in Japan’s post-war identity. However, while the transition is jarring, the author’s underlying apprehension regarding the risk of entrapment is ultimately justified when viewed through the lens of sonritsu kiki jitai.

This philosophy of “survival-threatening situations” allows Japan to exercise collective self-defence if its national existence is endangered. By rapidly augmenting its military capabilities, Japan risks lowering the threshold for what constitutes such a crisis. This creates a strategic paradox: while intended to deter aggression, these expenditures may inadvertently provoke the very instability they seek to prevent. The regional impact is profound, as neighbouring states view this rearmament not as defensive, but as a catalyst for escalation. Despite its necessary modernisation, Japan’s trajectory threatens to turn a policy of survival into a self-fulfilling prophecy of conflict. One must agree that this remilitarisation demands more rigorous diplomatic oversight.

In discussions I too have often proposed that giving home buyers the same tax settings as property investors would negate the leveraging advantage investors have that lets them bid higher. Except with Capital Gains Tax (CGT).

Extending that idea to taxing Capital Gains on the sale of one’s private residence, as suggested by the authors here, ignores one very important cause of the current market failure in providing housing. That factor is the lack of new housing.

The ALP proposal during their 2019 election campaign was to limit CGT tax discounts to new builds. That was the most sensible policy in a policy agenda that included many good policies. It solved two problems in one go.

It discouraged investors from using their other tax advantages to outbid home buyers for existing properties where they wouldn’t get the CGT advantage upon sale and, secondly, they’d then be more likely to put investment dollars into new builds where capital gains would be taxed less.

Unfortunately, the fact that election turned into a loss of one or two seats instead of a gain of one or two saw the ALP throw their babies out and keep the dirty bathwater they were aiming to replace.

The observation regarding the current administration’s strategic approach to shifting political currents invites a deeper analysis of the multifaceted challenges facing modern governance. Rather than viewing the perceived gap between rhetoric and policy as a systemic failure, it is perhaps more instructive to consider it as a reflection of the inherent complexities involved in maintaining social cohesion within a pluralistic society. As global political landscapes undergo rapid transformations, the task of crafting a unified response becomes increasingly intricate, requiring a delicate balance between immediate legislative action and long-term ideological stability.

The difficulties mentioned are not unique to any single entity but are emblematic of a broader struggle to address the root causes of civil fragmentation in an era of digital volatility. Achieving a coherent strategy necessitates navigating a labyrinth of competing socio-economic anxieties that transcend traditional partisan boundaries. Consequently, what may appear as a lack of strategic momentum could instead be interpreted as a cautious, iterative process of policy development. Ensuring the longevity of a multicultural consensus requires a nuanced understanding of these underlying pressures, prioritising the fortification of democratic institutions against the unpredictable ebbs and flows of contemporary populist sentiment.

I wanted to share my thoughts on this article. The author presents a compelling analysis of recent events. The contrast between Melbourne and Sydney responses is particularly insightful.

This piece shows that the perfect combo can make pixels feel alive. The nuanced discussion about democratic rights and peaceful protest really resonates with readers who value civil discourse.

Thank you for publishing such thoughtful content on these important matters.

The term ‘social cohesion’ is a misnomer. It has been written the USA believes in human rights but limits who it recognises as human. In the same way social cohesion has become a definition to recognise who is Australian. If you agree with the government, you are Australian (with various qualifiers and hierarchy).

Cohesion is an attempt to force conformity or to deny identity. In effect the political mob are asking the right to vote for who they represent. It is an admission of failure of government, of media, of the economic structures and a denial of responsibilities. Australia’s economy is now so lacking in complexity that it resembles a typical colonial extraction economy. The few who benefit are blind to the wider struggles and suffering of the population.

Whether on Indigenous rights, institutional racism, demanding support for genocide or deliberate and consistent economic policies that have for years encouraged the wealth, health and education divides to grow. Are you Australian, human? Is egalitarian Australia a myth?

In referring to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, Peter Hooton points out that “Defining what, for the purposes of the inquiry, constitutes antisemitism, will be a crucial first step.” Agreed! My critique of the IHRA working definition and its so-called ‘examples’ has been published by Independent Australia. The following alternative definition, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, is concise, less open to ambiguity and misuse than the IHRA definition, and likely to be more effective in identifying genuine antisemitism: “Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)”.

Stuart displays admirable restraint in his response to the fascist thuggery displayed by Police at the Anti-Israel protest that accompanied the shameful visit of the Israeli President, at Australia’s invitation.

It is difficult to accept the supine satrapy and moral vacuity of the Australian and NSW governments, in blithely ignoring the vast genocide and grotesque criminality of the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza. The clear racism involved in the actions of both governments will come back to haunt therm and hopefully soon. As the Australian government has cravenly refused to obey international law just to please the tangerine Daddy in Washington, their spinelessness compared to the Canadian PM is illustrative of what Hanna Arendt described as the “banality of evil”.

It is really difficult to summarise in a few words the outstanding contribution of John to public life in Australia. Not the least of those achievements has been the creation of Pearls and Irritations as the most respected Geo-political journal in Australia. For someone who has learned so much from P&I over the years I say thank you John, and look forward to many more years of your thoughtful and penetrating insights into this area of vital interest to the future of humanity.

In agreeing completely with Stuart Rees’ assessment, it is also worth mentioning Tasmanian senator Nick McKim’s suggestion that inviting Herzog to Australia was “deliberately inflammatory”.

While it is now beyond doubt that Albanese’s slogan of “social cohesion” is a euphemism to close down all opposition to genocide in Gaza, the means has now escalated beyond criminalisation of non-violent civil disobedience to violent state action against young and old Australian citizens.

It is also significant that Herzog’s presence in Australia coincides with Netanyahu’s presence in Washington at a time where Netanyahu is applying maximum pressure on Washington to destroy Iran.

From the perspective of Australian support for a US-Israeli large-scale war to destroy Iran, Herzog’s visit provides public confirmation of that commitment, while also providing an opportunity for the Australian political-intelligence class to further identify and estimate democratic opposition, and to publicly demonstrate its willingness to use state violence against the civilian population.

This is different to the opposition against the Vietnam War, or the opposition to apartheid in South Africa, because in those cases the ALP, the union movement, and significant sectors of the academy were principled supporters of international law.

That is no longer the case.

It is with great pleasure that I note the appointment of Mr David Armstrong, a distinguished media personality with a stronghold in Asia, as the new editor-in-chief of Pearls and Irritations, the only newsletter that still keeps me sane.

Many thanks to Mr John Menadue, a pioneer in reactionary and independent journalism, whose career and achievements in serving the national interest I have admired for years. Your journey in public policy has been incredible. We will continue to wait eagerly for the end-of-the week pearls of wisdom (and occasional irritation, which is the pearl’s Raison d’être) to come from the South, reminding us that critical and honest thinking is not dead in Australia.

As always with Jeffrey and Sybil this article is a paean to common sense, intelligence, non-aggression and compassion for humanity. Their unflinching and coruscating layout of the US criminality and abuse of international law bears the hallmark of a truth that the western MSM buried decades ago.

Increasingly the world is coming together around these views and in the process isolating the tiny but violent and aggressive proportion of humanity that is the dying Western empire. As so often with dying empires near their end the empire begins to strike out destructively and in all directions in a last desperate attempt to retain its power. They become even more dangerous due to the irrational nature of what they are doing and the threats that creates to the rest of the world. This empire is the only one with the capacity to end humanity, and possibly all life on the planet.

Jeffrey and Sybil offer the rational, reasonable alternative. Let’s hope the insanity currently occupying power in the US finally realises that it too will disappear by their own hands unless rationality triumphs.

If the Libs select Taylor it will be the last important thing they do before the descent into utter irrelevance. His views are Neo-liberal and globalist when both have been proven to be utter failures as the part of the world that has adopted them as holy writ, itself descends into economic, Geo-political and social irrelevance. I say bring it on!!!

As Noel Turnbull reports, the numbers show climate denial in Australia is a loud minority, not a majority view. Research from the Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub and Ipsos confirms most Australians accept climate change is real and support stronger action. Yet public debate often feels skewed.

That distortion is not accidental. Fossil fuel lobby groups such as the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (now Australian Energy Producers) and the Minerals Council of Australia have long campaigned against stronger emissions policies. The Grattan Institute and the Centre for Public Integrity have documented how opaque political donation laws allow substantial contributions from fossil fuel interests to major parties, shaping policy settings.

High-profile mining magnate and Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart has also financially backed conservative campaigns and advocacy opposing stronger climate measures.

When powerful donors and lobbyists amplify sceptical voices, it creates the illusion of division. In reality, most Australians want credible climate policy, yet the Albanese government has approved 15 coal projects and 11 gas projects in just four years. Clearly, the challenge is not public belief — it is political courage in the face of vested interests.

The Albanese Government’s fossil fuel approvals

Australia’s position to the south of pretty much everywhere that’s populated should give the country a certain objectivity with respect to world affairs, but once again the country’s elected representatives seem eager to position Australia somewhere to the right of everywhere else. Why? I hope that Albanese and others are taking the opportunity in private to explore with Herzog and his retinue how Israel might survive because right now they are sowing generational fear and hatred that will make it very difficult for Israel to survive long-term.

Angus Taylor‘s “weathervane” approach to climate is potentially disastrous. In his first speech as Opposition leader, he reasserted the party’s “no net zero” policy. Yet, almost to the day, a scientific paper by top climate scientists, including William Ripple, Johan Rockström and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, warned that we are close to crossing critical temperature thresholds that will make global warming even worse. They said precaution was essential. Crossing these temperature thresholds could commit the planet to “a hothouse trajectory with long-lasting and potentially irreversible consequences”.

Not having a net zero policy gives a green light to the fossil fuel industry who will continue to produce emissions that lead to higher temperatures. ‘No net-zero’ is profoundly irresponsible. If Taylor is to succeed, he must turn climate policy around completely, even if it means yet another divorce from the Nationals.

It would be nice to know that Labor is the light on the hill when it comes to climate, but they are not. While there have been some good initiatives by Energy Minister Chris Bowen, these are more than off-set by the Albanese government’s approval of fossil-fuel projects, including the extension of the Middlemount coal mine in Central Queensland this week.

No honest person could disagree with what John Menadue has written in the wake of Isaac Herzog’s visit to Australia. However, I think we should stop using the word ‘war’. Usually it is used as war ‘in’ Gaza or war ‘between’ Israel and Palestine. In contrast, Palestinian Lutheran Pastor Munther Isaac in his book Christ in the Rubble refers to the war ‘on’ Gaza, pointing out just how unequal this fighting is. So maybe only ever genocide or, if that’s a step to far for some (it shouldn’t be), ethnic cleansing?

My thoughts during this time have increasingly turned to Palestinians living amongst us. They only ever get negative press. They are far more likely to experience Islamophobia (though not all are Muslim) than Jews are to experience Antisemitism. And worst of all, how many are ‘not’ grieving the loss of family or friends in the genocide? Very few, I suspect. Where is our concern for them, from our government and within our community? Attending or supporting rallies is one thing. How many have shared tears with them? How do we do this? We still have homegrown barriers to cross and things to learn.

Peter Sainsbury’s piece on nuclear is timely. Wealthy players on the right are no doubt ready to ramp up opposition to our transition to renewables.
Angus Taylor’s official page states he was “the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction in the former Coalition Government…played a key role in reducing energy prices…lowering Australia’s emissions to record lows”.

Will nuclear be the debate we have to have, again? It is likely the Coalition’s past ‘energy policies’ will be recycled, no matter how many times Taylor now says he will move “forward”. We will be told that nuclear is essential, especially given the huge demand from data centres; we will be fed misinformation/disinformation about costs and safety. The science and economics of nuclear versus renewables will be endlessly questioned.
One Nation has farcically suggested the construction of “one advanced pressurised water nuclear reactor to provide about 1400MW of emissions-free baseload power on Australia’s east coast, at a location to be determined in consultation with the Australian community, at an approximate cost of $6.8 billion”. Some Coalition and One Nation voters are a risky combination. Rational thinkers must be ready to oppose it, with Sainsbury’s facts at the ready.

I should paraphrase Bill Shakespeare; “What’s in a phrase?” Greg Barns’ 13 February timely article should be a wake-up call to those of us in the sunny state of Queensland as two phrases are about to be banned by the LNP led government. The publishing or public utterance of these could see one landed in jail for two years. It is incomprehensible to me that “from the river to the sea” for example is deemed by seemingly naive politicians to be hate speech – a phrase by the way that has peppered the Israeli prime minister’s own political party. It is near farcical (if not so serious) that a phrase perfectly legal in the rest of Australia is to be outlawed in Queensland. Imagine the absurdity of having to discard a t-shirt with that phrase as you crossed the NSW / QLD border. Speaking of t-shirts, I hopefully look forward to the peaceful assembly of Queenslanders outside its parliament wearing or chanting the words. Perhaps the John Farnham song Two Strong Hearts could accompany we the people.

The deadly explosion from Gaza of Palestinians was the predictable blowing of a pressure cooker. For years the roughly two million Palestinians in Gaza had been living under a full air, land and sea blockade imposed by Israel. Israel also had its hand on the taps controlling water, fuel, medicine, food and movement. Occasionally they would dial a tap down a bit. They called it cutting the grass. To preface the litany of Israeli atrocities in Gaza with a reference to the events of October 7 as the monstrous Hamas-led attack is an attempt to seize and shade the narrative.

We then move to the Bondi massacre, a clear case of murderous antisemitism. The perpetrators’ links to ISIS are apparently accepted. But what is this ISIS? Appearing after the US-led Iraq wars, could it be a Western construct to undermine the entirety of Islamic civilisation? Turn “them” all into terrorists?

The author calls out what he names anti-human ideological movements including Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot-ism and Jihadist Islamism. Zionism? Don’t mention the war, but especially don’t mention the root causes. We teach the Holocaust. We do not teach the Nakba.

In 2026 we will be faced with both state and federal elections. Here in SA the theme among some of the parties is that they will cut taxation; a theme that will no doubt frame much of the narrative for most opposition parties.

It is time that we called this out. The real debate should centre on who pays the taxes and what do we use those tax dollars for.

The aim should be to shift the tax burden on those most able to pay – the top 10 per cent of society be they individuals or corporations should be responsible for the majority of the taxes raised. The tax dollars raised should be invested in our community, it should fund the maintenance and improvement of infrastructure, it should be used to pay for improving the health system, we should fund free education for life – in a fast changing world we need to invest in education for all.

Above all we need to acknowledge that this is not an ideological commitment – it is a recognition that irrespective of where one is on the ideological spectrum our country will be stronger if we work together.

John Queripel’s critique of AUKUS offers a powerful fiscal warning, but his comparison to India’s Project 75(I) deal rests on a “false equivalence.”

Comparing a $10 billion conventional fleet to a $368 billion nuclear one ignores the immutable geographic realities Australia faces.

India’s German-designed diesel-electric boats are excellent littoral assets for regional “two-front” threats. However, they lack the endurance required for Australia’s vast maritime approaches. As ASPI notes, nuclear propulsion (SSN) provides the persistent, high-speed range that conventional boats – limited by battery and fuel – cannot match. For Australia, a conventional fleet would be exhausted before even reaching primary strategic chokepoints.

Furthermore, India’s “due diligence” involved decades of debilitating delays and capability gaps. AUKUS sidesteps this through the “Strategic Integration” of Pillar One, ensuring a continuous deterrent via US/UK rotations. While Queripel decries the cost, these “down-payments” fund a tri-national industrial base and technological leapfrogging that “off-the-shelf” purchases cannot provide.

India has bought a coastal shield; Australia is investing in a long-range “ecosystem” of deterrence. One cannot critique the price of a marathon runner by comparing it to the cost of a sprinter.

John Menadue understands better than most the power of foreign lobbyists on Australian governments. From the alleged cover up by Prime Minister Whitlam of the Balibo 5, to Australian government’s refusal to recognise the Armenian genocide, or the way they seemingly won’t prevent a powerful trading ally from spying on activists in Australia, this country has long been captive to foreign pressures. Why Israel is seen as different to Indonesia, Turkey, China, India or US, or held to a different standard, isn’t surprising in the current environment.

Surely Michael Keating you meant that the key to raising living standards is the supply of affordable housing, where people want to live, with accessible, efficient infrastructure, including pubic transport and public green spaces. Living standards and quality of life will increase with an increased supply of housing that creates and sustains socio-economically diverse, livable cities. Supply of housing without discussion about type, where and how, sounds like trickle-down economics, which we know works for only a few (and not the poorest). And surely Michael you would take issue with state governments that are preparing to sell off public land, with a view to approving, high-density housing developments of which none must be affordable/social or publicly-managed housing, because, you know, supply magically raises living standards. The public will lose public assets and the government will use the proceeds to subsidise developers to build high-rise, unaffordable apartments. Supply on its own is not the answer. It’s the mix of housing supply, density, with the efficient public infrastructure that’s required to make it work that is vital for livable cities, for a range of generations of residents.

I’ve heard Chandran Nair on radio, in person and have started reading his work.

He wrote a brilliant piece describing Davos as a true mirror of world order and global white privilege. It’s a beautiful piece of writing, and the type of thing that I would ask students to read in a social science course to understand – silenced voices, alternative perspectives. So pleased to come upon his article in Pearls and Irritations. Thank you.

Chandran Nair writes of the hegemony of western bloc agendas in the priorities and presentations at the most recent Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum; he also cites the potential of alliances like the BRICS coalition to more effectively represent the needs and priorities of the rest of the world’s population.

Health systems are in dire need of such approach, with new models targeting individual and collective good, developed and operated free of vested interests such as Pharma and Vaccine developers, and independent of control by external bodies like the WHO, in which they have little representation or power. The chaos of the COVID era, the collusions of governments with Pharma, the distorted truths about repurposed medicines, the ever mounting concerns about vaccine harms, and the persisting repression and censorship of alternate or dissenting views, all of which prevail in Australia with its dependence on the narrative of the western bloc, are stark evidence of the need for new health systems.

When you were first elected PM, Mr Albanese, you declared that ‘people have always underestimated me’.

Quite wrong: we overestimated you, thinking that you would step up to the crease and go into bat to correct the entrenched poisoning of a decent society that has taken place over years of LNP government.

You have done no such thing; you have passed on to the keeper every hardball launched by ‘interest groups’ from mining, gambling, environmental, the military/industrial complex, the USA, and now, the genocidal extremist Zionist Israeli /IDF /Settler triumvirate that is trampling every aspect of human decency under the jackboot of its genocidal rampage.

Foreign Minister Wong, you have – most unexpectedly – relentlessly traduced your own reputation as Australia’s most trusted politician by abjectly kowtowing to the Zionist Lobby – and by that campaign, abandoned in the short term the very considerable Islamic contingent in our society. In the long term, you are pitching into the hell-hole of being a genocidal entity, every Jewish person in Australia for many generations to come.

This as a monstrous misjudgement of policy for the sake of a visit from an odious champion of genocide.

Shame.