Archives: Letters to the Editor

The article states that those most vocal/committed to opposing genocide in Gaza in Australia, in Britain and elsewhere are not antisemitic, but are instead anti-zionist. Yet the article seems to slide into repeating the accusation that such people are antisemitic. There is reference to surveys produced by pro-Israeli lobby groups with data claiming that “antisemitism is on the rise”. This is propaganda which unaccountably is not refuted nor analysed. It ignores the reality that the pro-Israel lobby claim all anti-genocidal expression as antisemitism, not as anti the actions of successive Israeli governments.

Pearls and Irritations readers might be interested to know that the Australian Trucking Association (11 industry associations representing 60,000 trucking businesses and 200,000 people working in the road freight sector) backs the move to electric trucks.

Before last year’s election the ATA wrote: “The science is in. The world’s greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate, and a global effort is needed to reduce emissions. . . That’s why the next Australian Government should (among other things) encourage new truck purchasers to buy electric with a voucher scheme covering half the price gap between comparable electric and conventional truck models. The incentive would be available through dealerships to any truck purchaser, including small business buyers.”

It is a shame the government has not so far taken up this excellent suggestion. Maybe if they got proper payment for our gas, reduced fossil fuel subsidies or demanded fair compensation for climate pollution they could afford to help decarbonise and improve our trucks.

While the Coalition may be “building their own irrelevance”, perhaps it is not via its climate-change denial, as this did not deter last weekend around 22 per cent of South Australians voting One Nation first. The fact that SA is a global leader in renewable energy was not on the minds of voters, just ‘the vibe’ of Pauline Hanson’s politics of grievance. She utterly rejects the science of climate change, believing there is insufficient evidence on which to base catastrophic predictions – never mind overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary.

The 2025 Senate inquiry on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy found that misinformation and disinformation are widespread across Australia, and that this both undermines trust in science and delays effective policy development.

We are indebted to Chas Keys and the Emergency Leaders for Climate Action for their work in warning governments and the public of the dire security threats posed by climate change. They and many other climate action groups around the country keep working to counter the seemingly growing grievance politics which seeks to bring the house down without any plan to build anew.

Once again i find myself yelling at the TV and Netanyahu .

When the much praised Israeli missile defence system allowed “not one but two” missiles to hit the ground in Israel Mr Netanyahu was highly critical of the Iranians targeting civilian infrastructure he threatening retaliation I could not help but help but question when retaliation started. Pots calling kettles black .

Using a team sport analogy If the other side has found a regular way past the Iron Dome defence system maybe we have gone into extra time and the other side has the ball .

Nail biting times especially with D. Trump on their side .

Just a note to say thanks for all your great work. It occurs to me that this article on the Iran War may be of interest to P&I readers.

best wishes
Pete

How unfortunate that the only view of the ACT justice system is given to us by one of the people to profit from its existence. Andrew Fraser (barrister) should declare his interest, and P&I would do well to balance Mr Fraser’s views with those of an independent and trained investigative journalist.

Governments encourage students to participate in higher education. The rationale is expressed in terms which highlight the benefits to the economy and employers. More simply put all of us benefit from a well educated and well qualified workforce. Given that we all benefit does it not follow that we should all contribute to the cost? Furthermore those who benefit most are the corporations or more crudely put those who hold 1 per cent of the wealth. It follows therefore that they should contribute the most. In an ideal world all education is 100 per cent free from cradle to grave. We could do worse than revist Whitlam’s trial of community education centres – at the time we were not ready for that model but reworked it could drive our long term prosperity

I’m 87 yrs old, Sydney born, now a Canberran. Re world affairs, I cannot overstate my disgust at the sycophantic Australian support (by both ALP and Coalition) for the US / Israeli invasion of Iran. The Netanyahu intent (US backed) seems to be the conversion of the entire Arab region, including Iran, into Israeli / US military dependency.

Aus is a Southern continent, geographically remote from Arabia – so why is Albo so desperate to please the US by giving the US and Britain billions of non-refundable Aus $ ? Has our current crop of political “leaders” been quietly reminded of what happens to those who resist US pressure ? Whitlam attempted to give Aus some international independence. His reward – the sack.

Where today are the Whitlamesque Aus pollies ? Are today’s crop silent, fearful such thinking will again bring US retribution ?

Also, are we being quietly reminded of what happened to the Kennedy brothers ?

Aus has surrendered its sovereignty and territory – we’ll automatically be drawn by the US into military conflict with its next enemy China, a major Aus trading partner.

Our future, and that of the world – who knows ?

This war has been planned for some time with Australia implicitly involved. We could trace back our recent involvement to the visit of Herzog, Israel’s President, whose stated purpose was to provide support to Australia’s Jewish community. I suggest that rather than coming as Herzog stated,“in goodwill and with a message that the people of Australia and Israel are close friends and allies since the days of old,” his visit was much more clandestine.

It has been confirmed that Herzog, had a secret meeting with Australian Security Intelligence Organisation [ASIO] and Australia’s director general of security, Mike Burgess. ASIO and the Pine Gap joint defence facility share a central role based on national security, surveillance, and US-Australia intelligence sharing. Senator David Pocock said that granting a foreign head of state access to the domestic intelligence agency ‘unprecedented’.

Tanter reminds us that Pine Gap is fully involved in Iranian surveillance and any zone of active US military interest has long included Iran with the objective to provide data to the US National Security Agency. One could conclude that Herzog had ulterior motives, garnishing support and collecting data for the attack on Iran by the Zionist regime and the US.

Many would agree with Bruce Hardy’s assertion that to achieve non carbon energy independence Australia “is to draw upon the natural resources we have an abundance of. it’s natural resources.”

However, to limit these to solar and wind is myopic, prejudiced and ignores other important and relevant resources such as hydropower, green hydrogen & geothermal amongst others .

Recognition and promotion of these alternatives, particularly green hydrogen where is Australia is making substantial contribution, development and progress. Atomic energy is the most obvious but unbalanced and unjustified hysteria needs to be revisited and objectively debated and assessed.
Perhaps the EEF could allocate some focus and promotion of these other worthy alternatives.

Peter Helene
Joe-Public
Clean energy disciple

On nowhere near the scale and at a local level but I draw your attention to the victory speech of the Premier when he said that his govt was pro business, his govt was committed to collaboration with the private sector. Like AUKUS this is a loss of sovereignty that has lead to all the problems that Australians now face – crisis’ in schools, hospitals, aged care, public transport, health insurance, power generation, banking, social housing etc. All sacrificed on the alter of PROMISED lower taxes and improved services only to achieve far worse services, higher public costs, poverty and greater state debt .
Mr Labor Lite should however be commended on his ability to divert public attention from the problems at hand to his newest sporting fixture .

The author has hit the nail on the head by suggesting the Singapore model. It offers the fair dinkum choice in the truest sense of the free market while affording total control by the citizen.

What we have is a guided and pseudo choice(s) to benefit vested interests and lobby groups. In addition,our system has the support of the political class who misguidedly subscribes to extremist free market idealogy without pragmatism.

The politicians are uncomfortable learning good and beneficial ideas from ASEAN (non-western) countries despite making statements (lip service) that Oz is part of Asia and are friends with Asia. Hence, the status quo will continue.

Thank you, Andrew Fraser, for tickling the old memory bank.

As a very young junior member of staff at the National Library, I was tasked to take and manage the NLA’s bound copies of the Canberra Times to Court in the Gorton defamation case – nothing less than originals was acceptable.

Barrister for the plaintiff was Tom Hughes QC – a man whose pomposity exceeded even the best of Charles Laughton in full flight. Hughes played the gallery shamelessly, with palpable arrogance.

David Solomon in the witness stand; Hughes leaned forward, his robe and QC dribble-bibble swinging in the breeze, like a vampire on the hunt. Put to Solomon a ‘gotcha’ question, stood back, pushed his glasses that he had lowered in glaring attack on the witness back up his nose, grasped his lapels and turned to view the gallery with ineffable smugness.

Solomon leaned forwards, pushed his own glasses down his nose in superb parody of Hughes’s action, said: ‘NO’, leaned back, replaced his glasses, grasped his lapels and then turned to view the gallery with the exact smugness of his predecessor.

The mockery of the pompous idiot Hughes was utterly, deliciously complete.

Viva David Solomon.

Producing a daily newsletter 24/7 is an enormous task and I am an admirer. However, I do not expect to read in Pearls and Irritations the same type of inaccuracies that appear in the legacy press. The following article should have received a minor edit. George Browning’s article The dangerous stories driving war in Iran contained the following statement:
The stories that people and nations tell themselves have enormous consequences.
Vladimir Putin tells himself that the natural jurisdiction of the Russian communist party is the area that approximates to the old Soviet Union. Anything less than that is, in his story, a diminution of the rights and identity of the Russian people
The last time I looked Russia had a thriving Communist party and Vladimir Putin was not a member.
The second part of the quote is probably debateable but Putin has been openly critical of the idea of restoring the Soviet Union. He has frequently quoted Alexander Lebed (1990)
Whoever does not regret the destruction of the Soviet Union doesn’t have a heart, whoever wants to recreate it doesn’t have a head

Commendable as it is, the ‘common good‘ has a poor history in democratic institutions, the strength of which depends on vigorous debate designed to take policy battles off the street. Common good inclinations, encouraging collaborative initiatives described as corporatist, often miss out on this realisation as opponents strive towards agreement around the centre. Catholic political parties, following ‘Quadragesimo Anno’, were ‘common good’ entities, which classically failed to address complex social problems facing global polities at the time. In the US, Congress agreed to an unprecedented suspension of the Constitution to enable President Roosevelt to push through his much-needed New Deal. Thus, the anti-democratic effects of common good politics have become an unfortunate accoutrement of political initiatives that are fundamentally opposed to social aspects of libertarianism that are intrinsically a part of neoliberalism. When the Nazis were elected to power, they soon disbanded all political parties, while the corporatist policies of Mussolini, Franco & Salazar were achieved through military coups rather than democratic elections. Here in Australia, our most prominent common good promoter, Bob Santamaria, initially an immense favourite of Catholics, came to political grief because of his hatred of social liberalism. Much as I like it, it’s not for me!

In 2007 a groundbreaking work by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt burst onto the world. The Israel Lobby was the book’s title, and for the first time the fact of an overpowering force at work behind the scenes in US foreign policy became mainstream.

Underpinning that force is the moral error of exceptionalism. It means we do not all stand equal before the law. Historically it means we study the Holocaust but memory hole the Nakba. In the present it gives us Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Iran. These are war crimes and crimes against humanity, perhaps quaint notions to some but real nonetheless.

Donald Trump gives every appearance of having made a Faustian bargain to gain the Presidency. There are also the Epstein Files hovering in his background. That’s his excuse, Albo. What’s yours?

Inheritance perpetuates financial inequality. With current taxation and policy settings this inequality is set to grow substantially over coming decades. This will encourage social instability as society is divided more permanently into the haves and have-nots.

There are two ways in which this situation can be alleviated.

Firstly, government must remove those taxation benefits designed to benefit those who already have capital wealth – negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. Had government not foregone taxation revenue through granting those concessions, and invested equivalent amounts directly into social housing instead, our society might look very different today.

Secondly, the government could follow the lead of other developed countries and introduce an inheritance tax. Such a tax need have no financial impact on the asset-owner while they survive, nor on their surviving spouse should they inherit; it would claim funds from inheritors before they have ever received them. This solution could, with minimal disruption, generate funds for social housing to alleviate the financial inequality which is driving us apart. The forthcoming budget presents a golden opportunity to initiate these reforms. This is a challenge to which the Labor Party must rise: it must stand up for the common good.

Australia is at a crossroads of fuel security.

Recent reporting by Isobel Roe shows the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is considering new levies on gas companies and reforms to resource taxation in response to the Middle East war. While taxing profits may provide short-term relief, it does not address the core issue.

Australia remains dangerously dependent on imported fuel, leaving us exposed to global shocks, price spikes and supply disruptions, as seen in recent surging demand and panic buying.

We have a choice in how we respond. We can look backward and consider rebuilding refineries and subsidising fossil fuels to secure supply. Or we can look forward and move towards reducing our reliance on imported fuels altogether.

Australian politics has become an insular playground game of political personality gangs: jostling individuals angling to retain their seat without any thought of their constituents needs or understanding of their electorates views. Policies have become Trumpian sound bite one liners regurgitated to tamed reporters who won’t question the spin. As far as I can see, the only fully costed policies, displaying any depth or understanding of the issues, emanate from the Greens. Let’s hope they can counter the last two decades of false propaganda from the major parties, and avoid falling victim to the in-house Labor / Liberal preference deals before the next election.

PM Albanese has expressed his strong support for the US and Israel in their illegal war on Iran. Just to refresh his memory here’s what he said about the illegal war on Iraq in 2003.

“Our government is about to redefine us in the eyes of the world as willing backers of US militarism… This is an unjust war without UN backing. Iraq does not represent a threat to Australia. What does that say about the sort of nation that we are? We are a multicultural nation, and yet here we are sending a message, particularly to the Islamic world, that we are a part of the old, white, Anglo-Christian order …” – Anthony Albanese, Adjournment speech on Iraq war, 2003.

To echo Bob Bowker, “After the Iran war, Australia faces tough decisions on the US.” Not to mention the clowns we choose to lead us.

As luck would have it, the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group’s recent open letter linking climate change and “fossil fuel use and subsidies” appeared the day after The Australia Institute’s latest report on these subsidies.

AI found that in 2025-26 our governments handed $16.3 billion to “some of the biggest, most profitable companies in Australia at a time when ordinary Australians are struggling with surging petrol and electricity prices”.

Meanwhile, a significant majority of voters of all persuasions are calling for a 25 per cent gas export levy. A levy on big polluters – to pay for the damage their products inflict on governments and communities – is also extremely popular.

As for the diesel subsidies the ASLCG referenced; Andrew Forrest, a significant beneficiary of the current system, has been lobbying for years to see it changed. Five years ago he even wrote an open letter on the subject.

Let’s hope this latest open letter, and the changed social and geopolitical situations, see our governments respond and finally respect the will of the people on at least one of these ideas.

References

subsidies https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-growing-faster-than-ndis-hitting-16-3-billion-in-2025-26/

gas levy support https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/one-nation-and-greens-voters-strongly-support-25-gas-export-tax-poll/

62% support polluter pays levy https://actionaid.org.au/resources/make-big-polluters-pay-australians-think-coal-oil-and-gas-corporations-should-pay-for-climate-pollution-damage/

Forrest’s open letter https://www.acf.org.au/news/time-to-phase-out-counterproductive-diesel-subsidy

At last, an Australian, Paul Heywood Smith, has been brave enough to describe Hezbollah and Hamas for what they are – resistance groups AND a media organisation has been brave enough to publish!

Israeli-American activist Miko Peled, author of The General’s Son similarly refers to Hamas as ‘freedom fighters.’

The authors of this piece can’t understand why there is so much opposition to and complacency about their dire warnings.

Well, look at their three suggestions.

• The first will be read as “Establish another bureaucratic body with jobs and status for our mates”
• The second as “Produce a document for politicians to read”
• And the third as “Create more jobs for our mates to produce more alarmist reports – that will not be acted upon so we’ll need more bureaucratic bodies and more reports”

Nothing about mitigating risks (Clive Hamilton style) with, for example, specific targets to plant and maintain xxx million trees of specific varieties in these localities by this date.

Nothing about reducing energy consumption.

Nothing about ceasing immigration and incoming tourists till we have an economy and an environment that are not harmed by that immigration and tourism.

We need concrete, specific, employment-creating projects and programs that Australians can understand, rally around and participate in.

I heartily agree with Stewart Sweeney when he advocates for taxation “… according to income, wealth and capacity to pay, irrespective of age, and use that revenue to build a better society for all.” Can he be persuaded to write about HOW to build that better society?

To me, his first step would need to be arguing against the Liberal “small government” mantra. What has privatisation brought us besides poor, fractured services and “private provider” shysters who are adept at ripping off government and taxpayers?

Could/Would Sweeney advocate for bringing essential services back under government control ‘and’ operation, ie become not-for-profit enterprises again? I would hope so.

We have to return essential services to “fit for purpose” standards. We should be subsidising public transport so it doesn’t cost a fortune to get to work or visit a major city from rural areas. We need to provide essential services that are not currently provided – dental care and mental health care. I include mental health care because so very little is provided as to be useless to most. And we need to fund programs to keep people out of jail and, if incarcerated, provide truly effective rehabilitation programmes. Just for starters.

I agree that “the real divide is wealth, not generations” because the concentration of assets concentrates political power to undermine our democracy. It is a dimension neglected by economists around the world.

It is neglected because on page 353 of his 2017 book, Picketty could not explain how “through most of human history, the inescapable fact is that the rate of return on capital was always at least 10 to 20 times greater the rate of growth output (and income).” Asset inequality explains how the Oxfam Press Release of 2017 could report “eight men own more assets than half the poorest individuals on the planet.”

Allegra Spender, like Picketty, want to tax assets, but no politically acceptable tax can stop a growth rate of “at least 10 to 20 times”. What is required is a counter intuitive self-funding tax incentive for ownership sharing.

An incentive for corporations to issue free shares to voters would obtain the support from all politicians. Even the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia who launched my 1975 book on Democratising the wealth of Nations.

It makes sense: “belittling existential climate threat is a misguided strategy”, especially in regional Australia where farmers and others see first-hand the effects of rising temperatures and unpredictable extreme weather. However it is also a mistake to assume that any debate about energy policy is rational, or honest.

The Gina Rinehart-backed Liontown lithium mine in Western Australia is 80 per cent powered by one of Australia’s largest off-grid wind farms, and also has extensive solar and battery storage. In its reporting, the Murdoch press lauded Gina’s foresight in the midst of oil shortages. The mine is already at a huge advantage and will continue to reap the benefits of renewables as shortages continue. Ms Rinehart, One Nation, Mr Canavan et al have been bitterly opposed to renewable energy (except when it comes to receiving rebates for installing solar panels on their own houses). Is it a case of opposing renewables on principal because it has been made into a ‘left’ agenda, and therefore political capital can be garnered, but in private take every advantage of the cheapest, most efficient energy source available?

You have to wonder: why is Ms Rinehart so opposed to the nation having what she’s having?

Peter Slezak has nailed it. The correlation between antisemitism and the appalling genocidal Israeli behaviour is crystal clear. It can only be hoped that the Royal Commission will note his comments and his comprehensive quotations.

Our community is being played by the zionists with new hate laws and right to protest restrictions that we simply did not need. Excessive police brutality has been an early outcome. Who demanded these regulations and laws?

Zionists.

As Peter says, we have lived in harmony with our Jewish community since the Second World War.

How utterly ironic that the rules based system established after WWII is now largely in tatters as a direct result of Israeli actions.

An excellent summary by Jack of the lack of the skepticism and doubt that should be a hallmark of a body designed to root out corruption in this report. It reflects back on the motives of the politicians on both sides of the Parliament. The idea was to create an anti-corruption body designed to create the impression in the public mind that something important was being done to counter the corruption at both political and bureaucratic levels.
These problems had become so obvious to the public during the Abbott and Morrison periods of government that public outrage needed to be seen to be addressed. But the overwhelming need for both sides of politics was to avoid the public spectacle of the responsible politicians being exposed and made accountable. That job was fulfilled perfectly.

The body that resulted gave the public impression of action whilst constraining the body by rules that ensured as far as humanly possible that no politician could really be held accountable.

Jack has cleverly revealed in his analysis the failure of the body in the largest case of political and bureaucratic malfeasance that those responsible will never be held accountable!!!

Jack Waterford’s article sits as the pile of evidence beneath the immortal words of Sir Humphrey:

“Minister, two basic rules of government: Never look into anything you don’t have to. And never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be.”

Absolutely everything that has proceeded from the establishment of the NACC creates cascading levels of utter disbelief in the veracity, competence and honesty of the NACC. The only mitigating factor has been the finding that the Commissioner, Paul Brereton, failed to discharge his responsibilities properly.

If the Albanese government is content to pass this continual pantomime noire through to the keeper without demanding that all concerned go back and do it again – this time properly – it is to its utter discredit.

And considering the discoveries, I believe that there may be a case for questions to be asked of the Brereton-led ‘investigation’ of the alleged war crimes committed by the SAS in Afghanistan that has, still after so many years, found only one person complicit in illegality.

Australia seems to be in a quagmire of high-level tolerance of miscreant behaviour at senior levels of administration and government. Not good enough.

Years ago, Barbara Tuchman, an American historian, wrote a book called The March of Folly. In it she detailed a number of examples where governments had under taken a particular scheme knowing that or should have known it was going to fail. Yet they persisted until the program totally and completely failed. Hence a complete folly right from the beginning.

In Australia we do not call such a program Folly, we call it Robodebt.

Or perhaps you may prefer the name, Black Swan. Another book, this time written by Nassim Nicholas Taleb called Black Swan in which he defines a Black Swan event as “it is unpredictable; it carries a massive impact; and, after the fact, we concoct an explanation that makes it appear less random, and more predictable, than it was”.

In Australia we call this “Black Swan” event, Robodebt.

I had thought of writing some long essay and unloading every failure of Robodebt from the beginning to the latest report from NACC. But I am just not up to it. The whole thing makes me sick. The final impact, just DON’T Vote. When you “destroy trust” that is the impact of this “Folly”.