Archives: Letters to the Editor

For whatever arguably good reason these laws are passed they eventually apply to any other good cause that the public may be protesting about.

Any curtailing of our right to peaceful protest moves us closer to the dictatorial/fascist states we see on our nightly news and the violence that invariably follows them.

We have sufficient laws about damage, graffiti, violence and freedom of speech without politicising everything and every opinion.

My concern is not that we have too many public servants, it’s that we have too many politicians with nothing better to do than pass laws only for the benefit of the too many lawyers and those who can afford them.

Jimmy Stewart made many movies. In 1960, he made The Mountain Road, set in China in 1944, when America was supposedly helping China against Japan.

Stewart’s character slowly developed an antipathy to the people he was helping and the final scenes escalate as the innocent Chinese villagers become collateral damage in his attack against Chinese brigands. (Yes, some Chinese fought anyone with whom they crossed paths).

Some say it was Stewart’s anti-war movie, but I cannot help but notice comparisons with American attitudes to Asians, especially Chinese, today. A lot of collateral damage can be expected if a peaceful understanding of their values and economy and trust are not reached.

We boomers asked our fathers what they did in WWII. How many children of this generation will ask their parents what they did during the Palestinian genocide when the major victims of WWII did their level best to wipe Palestine and Palestinians off the map?

I suggest there won’t be any equivalent of the many Holocaust memorials. Not enough people care to see that the same and worse is happening now, committed by the descendants of those memorialised in those museums. They won’t want to be shamed in the future.

We haven’t made a mark on our government as it sits on its hands, giving more support to perpetrators than to the persecuted. The mainstream press has been silent for decades. Big business pulls the strings and rakes in the money. The Zionist movement also pulls the strings while doing its best to shut down voices for truth.

Passing on the history of genocide in plain sight while the world averted its eyes will be the task of a small number of historians. And when it happens again, as it will, a very few will say “This happened before in Palestine.” And the people will look blank, having learned nothing.

If nothing else, the recent events and behaviour of both major parties proves to me that we don’t live in a democracy and never have and that there is little point in a budget. The weeks leading up to the budget should be parliamentary leave without pay.

What point is a budget when without any transparent discussion in Parliament the then prime minister can sign off on $300 billion and counting that wasn’t included in their own last budget?

How can the present prime minister actively pursue the commitment of Australian troops to a peace-keeping force or the supply of weapons and aid to the perpetrators or victims in those conflicts without Parliament’s discussion/approval?

Interestingly, they make plenty of time to discuss and vilify the refugees coming to our country as a result of conflicts many of which we are part.

What point are the promises in the budget without proper debate? What point are the questions which are never answered because question time is just a grab for the nightly news to promote pointless discussion in the pub?

Jack Waterford presents a masterly piece of analysis. In P and I on August 3, 2023, Mike Scranton described the setting up of the Combined Intelligence Centre (CIC-A) within DIO, which includes US intelligence analysts.

Well, Alan Kohler in ABC online on Monday called the Trump presidency a regime. We have our Australian Government Personnel Security Adjudicative Standard, which among other items includes loyalty to Australia.

In view of the loyalty of US citizens to Mr Trump and the rapid changes for the worse in both US internal and external policies, what should happen about the American analysts embedded in the heart of our security establishment? What should happen to the Five Eyes, or is it now only four and a half? Maybe even three and a half  – Canada won’t want to be sharing too much with the US right now.

The World Meteorological Organisation’s just-published ‘State of the Global Climate 2024’ report makes sobering reading.

While the world is not yet beyond the possibility of holding global warming to 1.5 degrees, achieving this will need a co-ordinated global effort. The report shows many climate risk markers at dangerous levels. The WMO say that they ‘are intensifying efforts to strengthen early warning systems and climate services to help decision-makers and society at large be more resilient to extreme weather and climate’.

At the same time, as Bruce Thom reported, Donald Trump is reversing American climate policies, “downsizing” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, destroying climate research online, and is now waging a campaign to interrogate all US-funded research overseas to defund any that focusses on climate.

We have a UN body of global scientific integrity seeking to strengthen our ability to build our climate resilience and secure a habitable world, while the man who governs the most powerful nation in that world drives to weaken our climate defences. This confrontation happens as the climate juggernaut strengthens daily. The environmental stakes have never been higher.

I would like to commend the Pearls and Irritations team that gives us “A five-minute scroll“. I often find the information given invaluable.

Today was no exception. I also call on the international community to do more to prevent the erasure of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza.

Apathy and indifference kills. Albert Einstein pointed out that “the world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch and do absolutely nothing”.

Where do our First Nations People fit into this discussion? They may well want to send us all home with our First Nations/Australian dual citizenship.

Would it require a referendum to fix and how much is budgeted by our superior economic manager leader of the oppose everything party?

Peter Hughes’ excellent article in response to the usual “thought bubble” that emanates from Peter Dutton’s ‘pea brain” amply illustrates why the latest is a horrible idea.

In response, one has to ask how this would manifest itself as an amendment; Would it add another sub-paragraph to s51 or would it (like the failed Communist Party referendum of the 1950s, equally ill-considered) be a new section “51A” and exactly what would it say?

If the point is to stop antisemitism or anti-islam or similar persecution, would it mention these by name? If it were to focus on the current target of antisemitism, how would that sit with all the various other religious and cultural groups that only one gets special protection?

The separation of powers established by modelling Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution exposes this as incompatible with the concept of democracy. The only logical option would be to make it generalised. If that is the case, what guarantee is there that cancellation won’t extend to refusal to stand for the anthem? Will my cousin be sent to the UK or US where he’s never lived, but is a citizen by accident of birth?

In his rambling complaint about forecasting, Stan Glaser overlooks one salient detail: Ehrlich, broadly, got it right. When he wrote The Population Bomb in 1967 there were 3.4 billion humans and today there are 8.2 billion. The bomb exploded by 241%.

However, in 1967 nobody foresaw the success of the Green Revolution in sustaining the boom in numbers. Ehrlich predicted famine, because that was what was happening in overpopulated countries at the time – but not the success in doubling the world food supply.

His book was intended as a caution — as it still is — of the perils of overpopulation. Recent scientific estimates suggest there are about four times more humans than the Earth can support in the long term, at the rate we are currently devouring resources. Belittling those who make such forecasts does nothing to secure the human future.

Peter Hughes’ article warns, cogently, against Dutton’s thought bubble about giving ministers power to strip Australian citizenship from criminal dual nationals who have served their time.

One aspect of citizenship law that Hughes only alludes to is the fact that a person’s right to citizenship is determined solely by the country granting citizenship.

Consequently, a minister deciding to remove the citizenship of a dual national cannot be sure the person actually remains a dual national.

It is quite possible the other country has already taken its citizenship from the person. In that event, the minister would be infringing international law which abhors the idea of statelessness.

Paddy Gourley presents a superb novel idea: “Australian defence spending should be calculated on the basis of a careful definition of the kind of country we want to be, a clear-eyed analysis of our strategic circumstances and the risks it poses and an assessment of the extent to which those risks can be negated or satisfactorily minimised by military power used in concert with whatever reliable allies are prepared to associate themselves with us.”

The world’s greatest warmonger and seller of arms, currently involved in genocide in Palestine and led by a deranged president, should not participate in any way in that determination process.

As far as we are aware, among the cohort currently sitting in the federal parliament, only two independents (Lydia Thorpe and Fatima Payman) and the Greens MP and Senators have clearly taken a principled stand in support of the Palestinians, calling for a boycott of the Israeli State in all areas (economic, military, cultural, academic, sport) and appeared as speakers in the frequent pro-Palestinian rallies.

So Stuart Rees — rather than only advocating a vote for humanity, for human rights, for support of candidates who uphold the rulings of the International Court of Justice that a plausible Israeli genocide exists and must cease, for candidates who defend Palestinians’ rights to self-determination, to a home of their own — should have also pointed out unambiguously this very important fact.

I cannot believe you would publish this utter garbage. The man is such a liar and his characterisation of Jerry is defamatory. To suggest Jerry is too stupid to be able to research what falun gong, the epoch times and the new tang dynasty are an insult to your readers.

I’m astounded you gave this China hater the oxygen to spread this poison. The CCP? Only racists and bigots refer to them by that. If you can’t find the countries name as the PRC or their political party, the CPC, then you know the person is being vengeful.

The accusations of Falun Gong are so laughable. Their documented bigotry is well known, the legal cases they face for systemic abuses of their members, especially in their dance troop, are a disgrace. So too, their abusive attitudes to interracial relationships and their crazy conspiracies about aliens and deep support for Trump and MAGA.

I really expected better from you. I won’t be making future donations if you think giving these hate merchants a platform to spread their lies.

Further to Stuart Rees and Margo Reynolds’ incisive article, it is chilling to read an Israeli newspaper opinion on the weekend which recommends a “political solution” envisaging the total depopulation of Southwest Palestine.

Further, it advances the view that those two million people can easily be accommodated elsewhere.

I read the recent article by Albert Roman with a sense of deja vu, as, back in 2021, when P&I published a piece I submitted providing the “other side” of the widely promulgated “West Good-China Bad” narrative I was described, in a counter article, as an entitled expatriate totally out of touch with the real people of Hong Kong, words not disimilar to those used by Roman to describe Jerry Grey’s status as a long-term resident of PRC.

And just as Painter who had enjoyed a short period in HK and so considered himself to be an expert on our society, so too Roman, whose bio claims he “spent time in Jiangsu Province” some 25 years ago, sees himself to be entitled to publicly comment from afar on matters in China.

I have news for Roman: when you put pen to paper, take care you are not inadvertently channelling the outputs of ASPI, The NED, Radio Free Asia or any of the other Washington-funded anti-China mouthpieces that so desperately try to disparage the government of China and its people and who are slowly but inexorably being shown up to have been peddling propaganda.

Last week it was antisemitism, this week it is Islamophobia. A new poll must have been released.

One of them is being driven by a group of racist white supremacists among us.

Paddy Gourley mentions again the cost of the USUKA (Aukus) subs. According to Sky yesterday, reporting on Keir Starmer’s visit to the UK’s nuclear sub factory at Barrow, “the visit highlighted ongoing challenges facing the UK’s aging nuclear submarine fleet, which has been forced to extend its typical three-month patrols to much longer durations due to maintenance delays and the postponed delivery of replacement vessels. The current fleet has now exceeded its intended 25-year service life.”

So where, when and how does the AUKUS-SSN work fit in? Or are we going to give Britain too a three quarters of a billion-dollar helping hand for infrastructure?

Ross Gittins’ suggestion for some form of a regional diaspora for flood-prone centres like Lismore might be technically correct. The Insurance Council of Australia wants $30 billion spent on mitigation. Even if both were immediately implemented by government, they are still long-term programs. Property owners need premium relief now.

The unsustainably punitive premiums reflect the insurance industry’s targeting large regions with small populations to bear the brunt of costs, a methodology dictated to us by international reinsurers.

The federal government Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation originally established to provide reinsurance for terrorism events post 9-11 was expanded to pick up cyclone events. It’s basically a $10 billion guarantee should the pool be exhausted by any one event.

This entity needs to be remodelled into a national catastrophic reinsurance pool that comes into play be it cyclone, flood, bushfire, earthquake, 9/11 terrorism or even a major man-made conflagration like the 2020 Beirut Port explosion.

The cost of this reinsurance premium can be spread across the country’s insurance pool. For transparency’s sake, the premium component should be disclosed on each insurance policy invoice. That will give us an interim breathing space while necessary billion-dollar mitigation strategies can be completed.

Paddy Gourley’s incisive article, of course, teases the memory of us old lags: Beazley was nick-named “Bomber” in his time as defence minister. It was a rather good fit; just as “Biggles” was for Nelson and “Poodles” for Pyne.

All of them have gone on to bigger and better things, one way or another.

Paddy is absolutely en pointe that Beazley’s defence (see what I did there??) of his attachment to several armament manufacturers is somehow linked to a safer defence of Australia, is irrelevant to the matter at hand – and it is irrelevant to the purpose of the Memorial. We sleep no better at night knowing Beazley is not discombobulated.

But that was not the piece de resistance to come from the 4 Corners expose. That came from Army Reserve Major-General Mellick, whose contribution did little to convince viewers who may feel that perhaps Army Reserve Major-Generals have in recent times done little to demonstrate a capability that such an imposing title might suggest.

It was Mellick’s contention that donations from “reputable armament manufacturers” were fine and dandy.

“Reputable armament manufacturers” now enters our lexicon as an oxymoron easily as distinguished as “military intelligence”.

Enter the pirates…

John White’s article in linking Trump, Putin and Netanyahu shows no regard to the relevant histories. The history of the Ukraine conflict goes right back to the break-up of the USSR and many events since then: eg Putin’s 2007 Munich speech, Minsk 1 and,2 and Istanbul and Boris Johnson.

Netanyahu presides over the horrific and ongoing attempt to exterminate the Palestinian people. He and his government are better described as Zionist. There are many Jewish people opposed to their actions.

To imply that the US and Russia are now aligned is untrue – there is brinkmanship going on which is clearly a vast improvement on the Biden days.

I enjoyed reading Binoy Kampmark’s article. I thought it was spot on. Brave-sounding talk by Australian “Big Men” about Australian participation in another “Coalition of the Willing”, as Kampmark notes, “Particularly, in Australia’s case, such a foolhardy promise shows that governments are willing to contemplate sending troops to conflicts they ill-understand and have no direct strategic value to them.”

As others have said, any such plan would need UN Security Council approval, which would be highly unlikely, given Russia’s veto power in the UNSC. Unlike the USSR (which did not turn up to veto a proposal for UN participation in a peacekeeping force to be sent to the Korean War as it was protesting against the refusal of the UN to accept the PRC as the legitimate representative for China at the UN. The Chinese Communists under the leadership of the great helmsman Mao tse-dong had won the Civil War on the mainland, and the Chinese Nationalists led by the KMT, under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, with US support, had lost).

In the quest for my vote: the party that links the solar feed-in tariff to the wholesale price of electricity would go a long way to getting my vote and I don’t have solar panels.

And it will have an effect on the solar panel take-up rate and the cost of living for the 30% of households with exisiting panels, although some may see it as middle class welfare

I don’t know if a letter to the editor is the appropriate way to do it, but I couldn’t see how else to contact you.

I just wanted to let you know that I’ve been reading P&I for some time and I think Peter Sainsbury’s weekly articles are extraordinarily good.

Please pass on my thanks to the author.

If the aim is to have independents in government at any cost, then I would agree with the strategy of giving preferences to any and all independent candidates ahead of the major parties.

However the aims and behaviours of some independents are heinous compared to the behaviour of the majors. Giving them a higher preference would be to accept that I’m OK if they get elected.

I cannot see how that would be a good strategy.

Paddy Gourley’s excellent article shows Kim Beazley to be another lackey of the US imperium.

Given his key role in Gillard agreeing to the rotation of US troops through the NT, I have often wondered if he is a CIA asset.

But then I think they don’t need to appoint him covertly as he is already on the payroll of the US war industry. No longer revered if he ever was.

I’m yet to decide whom to vote for! I do know who I won’t be voting for! I won’t be voting for the party that has no original policies, the party that only mimics the policies trumpeted out of the US.

I will be voting for the party that puts Australia and Australians first and I’m still to decide on that.

Admiral Barrie is no left-wing radical. He is a former chief of the Australian Navy. Many consider him the bad boy of Operation Sovereign Borders as he was the leader of that for a number of years. But he is a careful strategic thinker in Australia’s interest and any politician should take note of what he is saying. He is not the only one saying it.

I have seen and heard comments from others of his generation in the public service who are saying that Australia should move away quickly from our former relationship with the US and look for other friends. Keating’s idea of developing relationships in Asia is a good start.

“With, China, its values differ from ours and we may well feel that our own (imperfect) democracy is preferable to Chinese socialism.” Is it? Do the systems actually differ so much?

It could be argued that Medicare is a socialist system, as are the PBS , NDIS, superannuation and even our tax system. How often do we hear: “Why should I contribute to someone else’s medical bills?“ “They should pay more tax“; “They are bad economic managers, and will increase taxes“; “We support Medicare“.

These are a source of constant conflict between the parties, a diversion, and these lies are a waste of time in our political system.

One party wants to be socialist and the other hates socialists; everyone knows which party, but neither will own up.

Australia should come to terms with what we are not and get on with being who we are.

We are a big island with a small multicultural population located a long way from Europe, the UK and the US, and should make decisions based on what is best for Australia and Australians. We should be friendly to everyone and friends with Australia.

The author has also missed the obvious: that the Australian and Chinese foreign ministers met at the G20 summit to clear the air. Also that the Chinese Ambassador to Australia, when interviewed by Channel 7 in Perth, said the flotilla circumnavigating Australia was for friendly purposes.

I find the author”s comment “One of the most frustrating aspects of ‘dealing’ with China is the importance of what is not said” very unfriendly. You don’t deal with people. You converse with them.

Also I have found from conversing with the Chinese, such as when I have had coffee with a Chinese Consul in Perth, that they are very straight-forward and appreciate sincerity and speaking from the heart.