Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Jim Pavlidis<\/span>Credit: <\/span>.<\/cite><\/p>\n To submit a letter to The Age<\/em>, email letters@theage.com.au. Please include your home address and telephone number. No attachments, please include your letter in the body of the email. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.<\/strong><\/p>\n Andrew MacLeod (Comment, 28\/9) does not feel that individuals who vote No can be accused of racism. I guess that is true \u2013 among those voting No there are people who feel that an advisory group without power will not necessarily improve outcomes. However, if the Voice is rejected it will be indicative of the systemic racism which Indigenous people face daily \u2013 that even a simple request to the community to be heard cannot be accepted. It certainly will be how the world interprets it. Louisa Ennis, Thornbury<\/strong><\/p>\n A minimalist approach to change<\/strong> Referendum is about completion<\/strong> Looking for the meaning of Australian<\/strong> Only three things to consider<\/strong> Surely it is time for a leaders\u2019 debate<\/strong> Yes, women dress to impress \u2013 themselves, or perhaps their friends. They certainly don\u2019t want unsolicited assessments of themselves by random male strangers on the street, any more than they wanted the revolting wolf whistles from men on building sites (Kerri Sackville, Comment, 28\/9). It\u2019s not about what columnist Christopher Bantick wants (Comment, 27\/9); that old paternalistic world of pandering to what men want is disappearing. Next time you want to compliment a woman you don\u2019t know, just don\u2019t. It\u2019s creepy and unwanted. Just \u2018gorgeous\u2019<\/strong> Don\u2019t overthink this<\/strong> Sexist labelling<\/strong> A smile will do<\/strong> Not an object<\/strong> Nuclear is long term<\/strong> North is best defence<\/strong> Wrong targets<\/strong> Wrong priorities<\/strong> Right priorities<\/strong> Will history repeat?<\/strong> Tending to Victoria<\/strong> Bolte\u2019s lessons<\/strong> Love their way<\/strong> Politics<\/strong> Let\u2019s hope the new female premier is judged on her performance and policies this time, not her dress sense. Thanks Daniel Andrews. Someone was needed who would grasp the nettle of massive infrastructure programs. Dictators build palaces for themselves. Daniel Andrews\u2019 Big Build is for Victoria. Daniel Andrews would\u2019ve been voted back in tomorrow if he had run again. COVID is our third most likely cause of death. We must acknowledge the lives saved by the leadership shown prior to universal vaccination.
Andrew MacLeod is surely being disingenuous in arguing that the referendum might fail because Australians prioritise an aversion to \u2033\u2063constitutional tinkering\u2033\u2063 over racial discrimination. There is, in reality, a racial factor at play in the politicking of many No camp advocates. The proposal for an advisory Voice to parliament is, as attested by a brace of distinguished Australian legal luminaries, a decidedly minimalist proposal and poses no threat to the 1901 Constitution authored by white men. The gaps in Indigenous outcomes in relation to longevity, education, health and justice, along with the tragic trans-generational legacy of historic massacres, have been documented in depth. The proposed constitutional amendment does not carry the import imputed to it by MacLeod. It is merely an initial step towards finally acknowledging this nation\u2019s Indigenous population in our \u2033\u2063founding document\u2033\u2063.
Jon McMillan, Mount Eliza<\/strong><\/p>\n
Andrew Macleod warns of the ramifications of \u2033\u2063cementing the views of the day into permanency\u2033\u2063 in a constitutional referendum. The Voice referendum surely is about completing the Constitution. It\u2019s enhancing it by enshrining the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the Indigenous inhabitants of the land. It\u2019s including this in the birth certificate of the nation. These views are not \u2033\u2063of the day\u2033\u2063. They have been 122 years in the making and asking. Indeed, the matters in the Constitution are permanent. So too should acknowledgment of our Indigenous history \u2033\u2063last well beyond our lifetimes\u2033\u2063. Russell Crellin, Greensborough<\/strong><\/p>\n
Just wondering what it means to be Australian. Would have thought that looking after each other was pretty important. Seems as though we don\u2019t really care about our Indigenous brothers and sisters who obviously find it tough. What sort of country are we? For years I have not celebrated Australia Day; the country is broken. Nothing unites us apart from being divided on every issue put before us.
John Rome, Mt Lawley<\/strong><\/p>\n
This is my attempt to simplify the Voice debate. First, I ignore the mistruths promoted by some politicians, sections of the media and the social media. I also reject the \u2033\u2063need to know the detail\u2033\u2063 argument. Why? I don\u2019t usually examine every bit of potential federal or state legislation, I\u2019ve got better things to do. But I do take notice of whether it works or not, but it has to happen first. So, let\u2019s get to the heart of it. There are only three things to consider. The first, why a change to the Constitution? The first reason is a recognition of 60,000 years of Indigenous culture. The second is the advice from the Voice cannot be silenced by the parliament by abolishing the legislation that it created. The third is the Voice is advisory. The parliament will decide what advice it accepts, modifies or rejects.
Dave Robson, Port Melbourne<\/strong><\/p>\n
Given the opposition\u2019s stance on the Voice and claims of deception from both Yes and No camps, is it now time for the PM and opposition leader to hold a televised debate?
Leon Burgher, Stony Creek<\/strong><\/p>\nFORUM<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Robyn Westwood, <\/strong>
Heidelberg Heights<\/strong><\/p>\n
Re the general rule that a man should not compliment an unknown woman (28\/9), I do hope the obverse does not apply. I was walking my dog in a city park when a young woman directed a glance to me and my dog, smiled and then said: \u201cGorgeous.\u201d I courteously thanked her, asking: \u201cAnd what do you think of my dog?\u201d She had the good humour to laugh. As a mere male you only get one opportunity like that in a lifetime.
Thomas Hogg, East Melbourne<\/strong><\/p>\n
It is all getting so very precious and complicated. Kerri Sackville counters Christopher Bantick\u2019s lament that it is hard not to be misconstrued when making a compliment to women. Sackville issues rules on \u2033\u2063if the woman is a friend\u2033\u2063 and \u2033\u2063if there is no power imbalance\u2033\u2063.
As I age, if I have taken the time to match my outfit, or look respectable, or make an attempt at style (and this is getting rarer), I feel heartened when someone, man or woman, makes a positive comment. Far from being creepy, I feel acknowledged. The person is saying positively, \u2033\u2063I notice you\u2033\u2063.
Let\u2019s not overthink this and complicate things with rules. People try to be positive by making a compliment. It is small talk akin to the weather or footy banter.
The response is easy: \u2033\u2063Thanks for noticing\u2033\u2063 and smile.
Mary-Jane Boughen, Murrumbeena<\/strong><\/p>\n
Does Kerri Sackville instantly assume that all men she meets on the street are a threat? Is she saying that a female manager can compliment an employee on her dress, but a male manager can\u2019t? As a gay man, if I told her that \u201cYou look fabulous!\u201d I would not be trying to get into her pants. Are we really going to require all men to smile and step aside when they encounter women on the street? Is that what equality looks like? To me, that is what sexism looks like. The wholesale, automatic labelling of all men as threats is sexist.
What men, like me, would like help in understanding is why \u2013 in our efforts to reach equality \u2013 are the genders required to act in different ways? If I stipulated such restrictions on women in the workplace and in public spaces, I would be accused of being sexist \u2013 and rightly so.
Walter Ashfield, NSW<\/strong><\/p>\n
Kerri Sackville provides helpful hints for men who wish to give compliments. As a young 71-year-old, I have found the safest and most respectful way to compliment is to \u2033\u2063say it with a smile\u2033\u2063. No words are necessary.
Making brief eye contact (lest it become a leer) in a non-threatening way, wearing a kindly smile, says all you need to say.
Nick Toovey, Beaumaris<\/strong><\/p>\n
I\u2019m glad Christopher Bantick never approached me in the street and \u2033\u2063complimented\u2033\u2063 me on my outfit, or anything else for that matter. It\u2019s little different from the wolf whistles that made me feel uncomfortable when I was a young woman. \u2033\u2063Women are not a costume\u2033\u2063 is not just a slogan; and what we wear or how we look is not an invitation for an approach from an unknown man.
Don\u2019t objectify us. Ever.
Ann de Hugard, Chewton<\/strong><\/p>\n
The climate change challenge will not be extinguished if and when we get to net zero.
It will continue indefinitely as countries like ours balance the need to stay at net zero and the need to supply the necessary energy to maintain and improve the standards of living to which
we aspire.
That will require us to deploy all the available technologies and to take advantage of new and improved ones so that we can stay at net zero or aim for even better outcomes as efficiently and as inexpensively as possible for the foreseeable future. The current anti-nuclear argument is that \u2033\u2063it takes too long to build\u2033\u2063 and it will \u2033\u2063crowd out renewables\u2033\u2063.
These arguments have little credibility in a future where how long it takes to apply a new or better technology is less important than being able to apply it when it is needed.
That is how nuclear power should be considered: not as a short-term competitor to renewables this year or by 2030 or up to 2050 but as a long-term energy source that can complement the sources on which we are relying to get us to net zero in the short term, that is, by 2050.
For that reason, and because our standards of living depend more than ever on technologies, the federal government must remove the prohibition on nuclear power so that proposals can come forward as they are needed or as nuclear technologies advance or as their costs fall.
Michael Angwin, Surrey Hills<\/strong><\/p>\n
With the only possible threat to southern Australia being an invasion by a pod of humpback whales or a raft of penguins from Antarctica, it makes perfect sense that the Australian Defence Force relocates 1000 defence personnel from South Australia to its bases in the Northern Territory and Queensland.
Eric Palm, Gympie<\/strong><\/p>\n
I think the vandals who are deflating the tyres of random four-wheel-drive cars are taking the easy way out by pursuing the soft target. Why don\u2019t they go after the companies that are making these cars or the fuel companies?
The inconvenience caused by their actions can be huge: school delivery and pick-up, getting to that second job you work at night, making that medical appointment you\u2019ve waited weeks for, taking your parents shopping when public transport is out of action.
People who have to park their cars on the street are not necessarily wealthy tractor drivers. Many of those cars are bought because they accommodate large families and are considered safe.
Kathy Diviny, Coburg<\/strong><\/p>\n
Maybe Daniel Andrews retired because he finally figured out that he\u2019d got it all wrong. All that money on infrastructure, so that cars can move faster, and on rail extensions where there is not the greatest need for them.
What is seriously needed is social housing, more medical facilities and better public schools.
Elizabeth Pearce, Hawthorn<\/strong><\/p>\n
Victoria is growing at more than 300 people every day, so in 10 years when our population is more than
1 million greater than it is now, people will be so grateful that the Andrews government removed so many level crossings and built the new road and rail tunnels.
Malcolm Fraser, Oakleigh South<\/strong><\/p>\n
Greg Hardy (Letters, 27\/9) was right to remind us of the fine legacy of Rupert Hamer who came to the leadership in 1972 after the retirement of Henry Bolte, the longest-serving Coalition premier. Bolte had a similar dominant persona to Daniel Andrews and a similar penchant for using state debt to build things. Bolte, like Andrews, kept winning elections but was not universally admired; indeed, the left despised him. Bolte, like Andrews, was smart enough to know that his time was up, and he anointed Hamer as his successor.
Hamer was a refreshing contrast. He proved to be a progressive leader who worked hard and did great things.
He was universally respected by the public but not by his own parliamentary colleagues. He was undermined by the conservative wing of his own party and having lost party-room support, resigned in 1981. He was replaced by Lindsay Thompson, who was a competent but uninspiring politician leading a tired government. A year later, the Coalition lost office.
If there is such a thing as history repeating itself, then Jacinta Allan is well placed to replicate Hamer\u2019s successful premiership.
Graeme Henchel, Yarra Glen<\/strong><\/p>\n
Each time I don\u2019t have to queue at a railway crossing, I give thanks to Daniel Andrews\u2019 determination to get things done. At the time of the COVID-19 crisis, he took the best advice available to him during a period of great uncertainty.
All leaders make mistakes. Andrews achieved a lot for Victoria and one hopes that the new premier will have the drive, vision and courage to forge ahead with those projects which benefit Victoria.
Robert Scheffer, Bayswater North<\/strong><\/p>\n
To those bemoaning the debt legacy of the government led by Daniel Andrews, perhaps they should look at how Henry Bolte\u2019s government managed.
Bolte understood that debt was necessary and his government had a relatively high percentage of debt to GDP. He also didn\u2019t have COVID-19 to contend with.
Phil Labrum, Trentham<\/strong><\/p>\n
Collingwood fans will be singing along tomorrow if \u2033\u2063Frampton Comes Alive\u2033\u2063.
Bryan Fraser, St Kilda West<\/strong><\/p>\nAND ANOTHER THING<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Jacinta Allan is elected leader unopposed and it is reported it was a \u201cmessy battle\u201d. John Pesutto was elevated to the Liberal leadership by one vote.
Phil Alexander, Eltham<\/strong><\/p>\n
Marsha Merory, Ivanhoe East<\/strong><\/p>\n
John Walsh, Watsonia<\/strong><\/p>\n
Glenda Johnston, Queenscliff<\/strong><\/p>\n
Joanne Seidel, Sunbury<\/strong><\/p>\n
Steve Melzer, Hughesdale<\/p>\n