Archives: Letters to the Editor

One might think a rebuttal of this article unnecessary. Yet the very fact that it was published by P&I suggests the opposite.
(Let’s be clear: I have no problem with the use of large databases to solve complex problems. Just one interesting local example is the ability of Vic Health to now predict thunderstorm asthma events with great accuracy).

But LLM generative AI is something else altogether. It sucks up all the data in the world (literally), requiring gargantuan amounts of electricity and water, while creating … what, exactly? – other than psychopathic tech bro trillionaires.

And now these authors want us to believe that “with the right training”, AI can do “relational intelligence” for us. No, no, a thousand times NO. This is AI’s biggest threat of all: that we let non-sentient machines usurp the fundamental, messy but real nature of our selves as interacting social beings. The authors should stick with but strengthen their heading: AI WILL weaken human connection – regardless of any efforts we make to “train” it.

Kos Samaras, ever-enlightening on the complexities of public opinion and political change, provides some startling figures: “The top 10 per cent of households hold over half the nation’s wealth. The top 1 per cent hold somewhere between 15 and 20 per cent. The bottom 40 per cent hold essentially nothing, many, on net, hold less than nothing once debts are accounted for”. Voters are rebelling against inequality, and “aligning themselves with the bloc that reflects their economic experience”.

Curiously, One Nation supporters do not object to a leader who is heavily backed by the billionaire elite class in the form of Rinehart and Palmer – all unabashed admirers of Donald Trump.

In America, Trump’s net approval rating is now -21, up 0.3 points since last week. 37 per cent approve, 57 per cent disapprove, 5 per cent are not sure.

Relentless misinformation campaigns from mainstream media continue to cloud the landscape and offer false narratives about ‘fairness’. Note the campaign to fight the recent tax changes which would ever-so-slightly move the dial in favour of a more equitable distribution of wealth. Hanson’s voting record indicates her enthusiasm for reducing tax on high-income earners.

What, exactly, are her policies for genuine redistribution of wealth?

Contrary to the negative image conveyed by this article of the levels of satisfaction of Chinese youth the facts seem to find the opposite. “Chinese College Student Tracking Survey (PSCUS)” found that Chinese university students have a “positive and healthy political value orientation” and a “strong sense of national and institutional identity”. It also noted that students’ “government satisfaction has significantly improved, especially regarding the government’s anti-corruption efforts”.

A review of multiple academic studies concluded that even though younger people might show slightly lower support compared to older generations, “young people who hold positive views towards the CCP regime still constitute the significant majority of the youth in China.”

One study found trust in the national government at 66 per cent. Another reported support for the central government at 77 per cent. A recent (2024) study using this method found 65-70 per cent support for the government and 65 per cent agreeing that the government “works for the people”.

This range of 65 per cent to 77 per cent is a more conservative estimate, yet it remains substantially higher than government trust levels reported in many western nations (e.g., US 33 per cent, UK 29 per cent).

The facts tend to suggest otherwise than in this article.

Women and children trapped in squalid conditions in the Al Roj internment camp in Syria returned to Australia to a media and government witch hunt. One member of the group and her daughter are stranded in the Middle East. This family is barred from re-entry to Australia violating the democratic right to return home. Labor’s operations to block women and children constitute an attack on the democratic right of citizenship. Citizens have the right to not only reside in their country but to challenge government decisions to deny entry and arbitrary detention without trial. We continually hear that “any breaches of the law will mean these people will face the full force of the law”. These prime ministerial declarations incite hatred, specifically anti-Muslim sentiments and prejudices any chances of fair trials fuelling racist hysteria against Muslims and immigrants, in general. Have we forgotten the “Fair Go” value and belief that all individuals should be treated equally and given a fair go, especially in this case, when there is no history of these troubled women causing any form of terrorism in their home country?

Adrian Rosenfeldt raises a very timely issue. I just hope this encyclical does not go the way of Laudato Si, on ecology. My recommended further reading on AI would be Prof. Nick Bostrom’s 12 year old book Superintelligence. What is most unfortunate is that the political response to AI should have started then.

It would be easy to call promoting Army Reserve officers to important positions as evidence of the old ‘Psychology of Military Incompetence’ applying.

A chest full of chocolate medals and undecipherable campaign ribbons is no guarantee of excellence – that has been shown in recent times to be axiomatic, to the point where it may well be more of a red flag than a recommendation.

However, rather more necessary than just a properly rigorous selection exercise is a total re-alignment of the fundamental principle that sustained the formation of a completely useless NACC in the first place: the obfuscation of public scrutiny.

The concept that the NACC should operate on the basis of public scrutiny only when it was determined to be ‘of public importance’ is a gate through which you could drive a stampede of elephants – much less a camel.

The reset in the legislation for the NACC must be changed to make it incumbent on the NACC to restrict public access to proceedings in only matters of national security or redaction of data invoking genuine privacy concerns.

Without this change, the NACC will continue to operate as a fiefdom rather than a public service.

Yi Fuxian’s analysis of China’s demographic crisis relies on flawed comparisons and standard neoliberal blind spots. Comparing China’s 49-hour enterprise work week to OECD averages is comparing apples to oranges. OECD figures include casual and part-time labour which artificially depress their averages, whereas Chinese data focuses on full-time enterprise employees.

More importantly, blaming the One-Child Policy ignores the broader East Asian reality. South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan all share ultra-low fertility without ever experiencing a one-child mandate.

The root of the issue has little to do with the author’s macroeconomic complaints and everything to do with a hyper-competitive educational system and corporate culture. When young workers are utterly drained by intense workplace competition (neijuan), they simply lack the time and energy to date, let alone contemplate starting a family. A portion of China’s young people choose to do the bare minimum to get by.

Beijing’s current focus on de-commodifying the structural costs of living – such as popping the housing bubble, making childbirth free, and capping tutoring expenses – shows an understanding of this reality. The genuine hurdle is enforcing a decent work-life balance, not the western neoliberal economic fixes proposed by the author.

Warhurst’s article is timely if very depressing. Here in Adelaide the Church and its leadership especially the Cathedral Diocese are to the right of Franco. Murdoch’s The Australian is the paper of choice for most of the clergy especially the Latin Mass lot who have it delivered to the steps of the church where their presbytery is. And if you are unlucky enough to be engaged in conversation by the aged Mass attenders they will parrot back ad nausem Murdoch’s line or that of Sky News. And lo the Catholic paper even had Sheridan over as a guest. And they wonder why the pews are empty. And we won’t mention the medieval theology that drives the church here.

Great article by Chas and John. Commercialisation of sport leads to rule changes as well. With AFL, advertisements appear every time a goal is scored. The television stations contracts with the AFL demand a minimum number of goals per game. Rebates payable to TV stations if not met. Hence, rule changes to speed the game: kick off from full back no longer within the square, but outside the square; A ball kicked out of bounds is no longer a throw-in, but a free kick. The recent reduction of score reviews is consistent with this, because from an advertiser’s perspective, the 30 seconds spent on the review is ‘dead time’. From a viewer’s perspective, with ad breaks on goals, continuity is lost. Watching the players celebrate a goal, and move back to the centre is an integral part of the game. The viewing experience is degraded by replacing this with maximum ad-break time on goals.

Greg Barns moots the likes of David Pocock not ruling out a new political party, presumably with like-minded Independents. With a far lower profile than Greg, I too left the Liberal Party when in Queensland it decided to consummate its relationship with the National Party. Talk about the Bride of Frankenstein. Refreshingly there is a tribe of us, who I take the liberty of labelling broad-minded Centrists who would be interested in such a movement. This evidenced in my experience of witnessing the rapid growth of some social media platforms, simply started by individuals doing no more than considered research and then expressing a common-sense viewpoint. The challenge for Messrs. Pocock et al will be in the coalescence of such a group, allowing, indeed encouraging individualism yet having the discipline to form a cohesive front when the many circumstances that will demand it. The rise and fall of the Australian Democrats are perhaps a salutary lesson. That said, I believe many of us look forward to what could progress.

Thank heavens for a great piece about the most sacred and unexamined Oz sacred cows. Apart from the monetising of tribal belonging: Two things: 1 the major winter sports in Australia rely on one person physically downing another person using physical strength. Meanwhile we have an epidemic of domestic violence with physical solving as a method of solving problems. And 2: sports stars once posed as role models for the young are often well short of the mark in greed or behaviour.

The current opposition’s hasbaric apoplexy on long overdue tax reforms introduced by the Australian government does them no credit but places them and their media cheer squad squarely as supporters of the wealthy few at the expense of the vast majority of Australians.
The question that the media should be putting to them is: ‘The broad consensus among Australian economists is that wealth derived from capital growth is taxed more favourably than income from wages and salaries. This circumstance disproportionately favours wealthy people who have surplus funds to invest, and it increases generational and gender inequality. How do you justify this disparity in distribution of the taxation burden and widening of the wealth gap in the land of the ‘fair go’ ‘?

Magnifica Humanitas is an important contribution to Catholic Social Teaching which has a consistent focus on the common good and human dignity. The mass media response to this encyclical has a focus on AI – tending to ignore the broader and historic analysis. There is, for example, an analysis of the culture of power and the normalisation of war with force as an instrument of international power. Putin and Trump are prime examples of this might is right but, then, the enablers of war are complicit.

Australia, for example, has decided not to condemn the illegal attack on Iran by Israel and the US yet criticises the Russian invasion of Ukraine as against international law. Australia laments the excessive taunting of an Israel Minister but not the torture and sexual assault of Australians – yet alone the ongoing torture and sexual assault of Palestinians. Australia laments the Israel-Palestinian conflict but refuses to name, shame and punish Israel’s ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians.

There is a saying: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to say nothing. Australia’s good men and women in Federal and State Governments are unwilling and/or unable to condemn Israel’sevil.

I would like to draw your attention to Mr Barnes failure to mention the role of the Australian Democrats in national politics in the 1990s and early years of this century. It is also typical of commentary from former and current members of the two party state (ALP and LNP) to overlook the importance of the Democrats centrist position.
By and large, they delivered Howard and Costello’s tax reform, ie GST, yet were socially progressive.
Is it possible their centrist policies empowered the LNP conservatives?

Paul Heyward-Smith’s article is a necessary wake-up call to the incessant growth of pernicious legislation that corrodes society’s rights.

I cannot recall any ever relaxation of ’emergency’ legislation responding to some infringement of freedom of dissent, expression, association etc. of our rights as citizens. Once enacted, that legislation becomes foundation for increasing restrictions – and rinse and repeat.

We have the example of the perversion of the US Supreme Court as a reminder that we must always resist abuse of our fundamental rights as citizens. Give the proto-fascists an inch and they will take every scrap of power they can grab and then some.

This is ongoing assault on human rights. We must fight it for our sake and the sake of those who follow.

This article delivers a harpoon to the whale of misinformation that underlies the comments of Minns. Why is that so. Minns has a record, as a supposedly Labor Premier, of leaning strongly to the very conservative side of Catholicism on a range of social and economic issues. His stands on freedom of speech, gender issues, the levelling effects of taxation and racial politics are all in the zone that would be expected of those occupying the more conservative ranks of the Coalition.
That is exemplary of the gradual but consistent drift of the Labor Party to the right of the political spectrum. The great figures of Labor such as Whitlam, Keating, Dunstan, Wran and Uren would find the modern Labor Party an uncomfortable fit!!!

The article mentions Trump’s need to safeguard his own and his family’s investments, and that need influencing how he brings to an end the war he and Netanyahu started against Iran. It is possible to come to the view that, for all his protestations of grandeur, Donald Trump is simply a boomer-era grifter, the spoiled son of a rich man from New York City. The Greek myth of Icarus comes to mind.
The gift of a Wedgetail reconnaissance aircraft was likely to compensate the US forces in West Asia for the loss of their ground-based radar systems to Iranian missile attacks, launched in response to Trump and Netanyahu’s acts of aggression. At least we are in good company. Reports have it that missile systems have been taken out of both Japan and South Korea to further this unnecessary and illegal war of aggression.

Geoff Davies asks why we have ignored Attenborough’s warnings that our industrial-economic system is destroying the living world. Perhaps it is because humans are too stupid, as Gaia founder James Lovelock suggested in 2010. I would add too greedy. Davies links this greed to the “financialisation of productive activity” and the pressure on companies to “maximise shareholder returns ahead of all other considerations”. That is capitalism treating nature as an infinite, free storehouse of raw materials. There are, however, some encouraging exceptions, including banks and super funds identified by market forces as ethical and sustainable. So what is the alternative? The British Ecological Society points to Citizens’ Assemblies as a successful way to drive change. Davies also advances solutions in his book, A New Australia: Discarding Delusions and Organising for the Wellbeing of All, arguing neoliberalism has been hijacked by vested interests at the expense of the common good: “It has become a convenient cover for those who wish to turn the power of the State to their own advantage.” Davies ultimately asks whether Australians are prepared to embrace a more sustainable and equitable future for future generations? Are we?

Alex Wodak offers no argument beyond those noticeably in lockstep with arguments used by all major tobacco companies. If tobacco tax was cut to 2020 levels, budget cigarettes would cost $30 a pack. If all tax went, they’d cost $11. Today they cost $7 if bought by the carton. In Cambodia a major illicit tobacco transit hub, taxed cigarettes sell for as low as 34 cents a pack. That’s how much criminals have up their sleeves to drop prices further. And I’ve now heard it all. In what universe would most budget-conscious smokers say “I really hate not paying tax, so I’ll fork out extra dollars to help the government”. Truly? Is Wodak clueless about Australians’ willingness to pay cash to tradies, cleaners, barbers etc who, like illegal tobacco sellers, often avoid tax? In six years, the ATO has clocked up 300,000 tip-offs on tax evasion. And more news for him. In countries with inequality of income (ie: all of them), all sales taxes are regressive. But, importantly what a perverse way to help the disadvantaged: give them access to cheap smokes as government policy rather than a powerful incentive to quit or not start.

The massive trade in illegal cigarettes was preceded by a widespread illegal trade in vapes. Criminals importing illegal vapes saw that enforcement was weak and the profits large. The next step was obvious: flood the market with cheap smokes.

Alex Wodak was a strong advocate for vapes to be sold in at least as many outlets as tobacco, ignoring the historical lessons of unrestricted tobacco retailing. He now blames public health advocates for facilitating the flood by supporting tax increases which he concedes “helped reduce smoking rates for decades”.

In Victoria, where enforcement against illegal tobacco has been glacial, criminals have moved from selling illicit products to firebombing restaurants, bars and nightclubs. No doubt public health will be blamed for that too.

Dr Wodak is impressed that tobacco companies have been selling alternative nicotine delivery products for 12 years. But unlike many car companies, which have announced dates to end fossil-fuelled car manufacture, no tobacco company has named a date to stop making cigarettes. Like thieves justifying continued dealing in stolen goods, they argue: “If we stopped, others would just keep selling.” Yet Dr Wodak says he now “sides” with them for “getting it right”.

Make no mistake, those who were part of the flotilla showed bravery, courage and a strong sense of justice.
The response of the Australian government was the correct one, albeit a bit flaccid.  What is less heartening is that the responses by the relevant ministers were more strongly articulated for the dozen Australians kidnapped by the IDF than for the 75,000+ Palestinians slaughtered by the IDF.
Claims made by the Australian government regarding breaches of International Humanitarian Law hold very little water when compared to the ongoing and flagrant breaches permitting the export of military componentry, finance and aid to the IDF.
I cannot help but conclude that the treatment of Australians by the IDF was/is of greater concern to the Australian government than the lives of Gazans.

Thank you, Martin Flanagan (Tom Uren-no ‘woke warrior, May 24, 2026), for such a moving account of Tom Uren. I only knew Tom briefly through his support for East Timor’s liberation from invasion and barbarity. Tom joined several prominent political figures at the launch of the anti-Timor Gap oil petition campaign at the University of Melbourne in 1994. I believe, if here today, Tom would share the same solidarity for the liberation of West Papua. No people deserve barbarity, unlawful invasion, dispossession, abandonment, and decades of crimes against humanity. Leaving the crowded lecture theatre back then, Tom remarked on the surprising number of students filling the theatre for the petition launch. I acknowledged the student campus interest, and the big fella had that same radiance of collective spirit your article, Martin, and the lead-in photo displays. Keeping the faith of solidarity, often surrounded by censorship, prejudice and denial, is a fight and faith we who share this collective spirit, will never surrender. Our common bond – never accepting what is patently unacceptable. In peace & solidarity, Jim Aubrey, Genocide Rebellion-Free West Papua Chapter Australia

I have just had time to read through your article on anti semitism and Fred Zhang’s urging us to be more proactive than just reactive especially in our relations to China, USA, ….
THANKS! In depth and informative.
If only our own newspapers and media would publish such rather than regurgitate US and lobbyist propaganda. Tony
PS As a pensioner I do donate a little when I can.

In December last year, Ernst Willheim, honorary professor of Law at ANU, asked: “What the ICJ’s climate law decision means for Australia?”. Five months earlier, the International Court of Justice issued a unanimous advisory opinion that states have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions because “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights”.
In 2023, the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu, inspired by the youth group Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, secured UN General Assembly support to seek the advisory opinion. Willheim concluded the ICJ opinion would allow Australians to rely on the court’s legal principles in domestic challenges to approvals for new coal mines and gas projects.
Last week, the UN General Assembly backed the ICJ ruling by 141 votes to eight, with 28 abstentions. Australia supported the resolution. To remain consistent with that vote, Australia must now stop approving new coal and gas developments. Willheim’s conclusion that climate litigation in Australia now has international law behind it has only strengthened. If Australia fails to match climate rhetoric with action, its credibility as COP31 president of negotiations will suffer badly.

In my letter of May 18 (Community independents as the next opposition), I challenged Kos Samaris’ idea “that PHON is the Opposition of the future.” To my horror, now the AFR suggests that if an election were held today (23 May), the Nationals and Greens would be wiped out, a Liberal rump would remain, and PHON, winning 59 seats, would indeed become the Opposition.

In my opinion of 18 May, I was obviously giving more credit to Australians than many deserve. I understand a protest vote, I’ve made a few of those. But we seriously have to question the capacity for critical thinking of those who think that PHON could possibly be the answer to even one of Australia’s problems, let alone many or even all of them.
What has gone wrong that voters can ignore good independent candidates and a few others on the cross bench?
Why has the government caved to foreign-owned corporations?
Why does the government slavishly follow the US line?
Why are our major news sources mostly few and foreign?
Why are politicians and political candidates allowed to lie and distort the truth in ways we wouldn’t tolerate from 6-year-olds?
We are killing our own country.

Australia has joined other countries in condemning Israel’s National Security Minister for taunting Flotilla prisoners. Most of the same countries have not condemned the Israel genocide and torturing of Palestinian. Shame – and shame Australia.

In over 70 years of my life, with many, many wonderful Jewish friends of the family, I was made aware of antisemitism in perhaps a handful of instances.

But there is an invasive armada of Zionist protagonists seeking advantage who weaponise antisemitism for their advantage. They declare ‘antisemitic’ actions vociferously and we – including the Commissioner of Inquiry into Antisemitism – are expected to uncritically accept their assertions.

The ‘Jewish Lobby’ groups – those who seek to bend Australia’s social cohesion to their will – number a declared 200 by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, that declares itself with no verification as the peak Council of Australian Jews.

There are less than 100,000 self-declared Jews in Australia, that means on average each of these bodies has around 500 members.

Two serious works of analysis need to be read to gain a better understanding of the work of the Zionist lobby:

John Mearscheimer and Stephen Walt’s: The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy; and Norman Finkelstein’s: ‘The Holocaust Industry’

The inevitable conclusion is that the broadest possible extension of a definition of antisemitism supports the Zionist aspiration rather than social justice.

Stephen Howes is right to argue that Australia’s aid budget failed to reflect the scale of the current global crisis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia recognised that instability across our region required a serious humanitarian response. Yet despite the economic and humanitarian fallout from the Iran war, this year’s increase to foreign aid was minimal once inflation is considered.

As a university student involved with The Borgen Project, I find it frustrating that aid is still treated as politically expendable, despite its role in supporting food security, healthcare, and long-term regional stability. Rising fuel and food prices are already affecting vulnerable countries across the Indo-Pacific, and Australia has both the capacity and responsibility to respond more meaningfully.

Foreign aid should not be viewed as charity. It is an investment in preventing deeper instability, humanitarian crises, and inequality in our region. At a time when Australia is benefiting economically from rising gas prices, doing the bare minimum sends the wrong message about our priorities.

Mr Menadue is to be applauded for this article. I only wish my own submission were half as good. My main point concerns statements such as: “We are told to heed the hurt feelings of Zionists, some on university campuses, who support genocide or have wilfully chosen to ignore it. They should be protected.”

To what extent, and how, should fears and hurt feelings be protected? Post traumatic stress is understandable for the immediate Holocaust generations. But we’re hearing of these ‘injuries’ from quite young people. Subjectively, I don’t doubt them. But are they confronted by anything that objectively justifies their fears and hurt feelings? How much of this fear is learned by hearing Holocaust stories constantly, when you attend heavily fortified synagogues and schools? Of course entering the real world of university would come as a shock. Statistically, Muslims experience far more Islamophobia then Jewish people do antisemitism yet we hear nothing like the number of complaints about that.

This commission should have examined all aspects of racism or not happened at all. But if legislation must come from it, it should be based on objective facts, not subjective feelings. Legislation won’t help fears and hurt feelings. Psychology will.

Just ask yourself how many Gazans would have been killed if Hamas had not conducted their pogrom on 7 October and then hidden in their tunnels when the obvious response from the IDF followed, leaving their population in harm’s way among the rocket launchers in the middle of civilian centres.