On hung parliaments
Margaret Callinan writes: Bring on a hung parliament! The two major parties have become such shadow images of each other that a wedge driven between them is the only thing I can think of that might force them to review their policies so voters have a real choice.
But how good would a hung parliament be? Look at what’s on offer. The Greens seem incapable of compromising and are very good at disruptive game-playing. The so-called teals have some excellent ideas but are prepared to compromise, preferring some progress over further entrenching unacceptable positions. Other independents are an even more mixed bunch. What are their voting histories and their values?
For all candidates, big party, small party, independent: get rid of the ratbags, we don’t need them. Nor do we need career politicians who spend more time worrying about climbing the career ladder than being concerned about their constituents. Above all, bring back a semblance of decency and give us open, transparent governance unbeholden to wealth and corporate power.
Bill Wallace writes: In general, a diversity of viewpoints when coming to decisions should lead to better decisions. From that perspective, a hung parliament is to be welcomed. The flaw is when a coordinated minority has the effective power of veto on legislation, and rather than seeking solutions (i.e. compromise) they take a “my way or the highway” approach.
From that perspective, I have concerns about the Greens, who reflect and over time have reflected an inability to compromise to come up with an effective solution.
On Labor’s caucus rules
Terry O’Hanlon writes: Labor not only should but it must change its caucus rules, or its inflexibility will kill it.
Both writers (in the Friday Fight between Bernard Keane and Rachel Withers) note the supposed promise that what you see with Labor is what you get — your Labor MP won’t cross the floor and vote against the party’s policy. And both acknowledge the big but: that’s not what happened with Senator Fatima Payman. How ridiculous! Fight’s over!
Since gaining power, Labor leadership has drifted to authoritarianism. They seem to serve at the pleasure of their fossil fuel, mining and gambling mates, the defence industry conglomerates and the pro-Israel lobby. And they’ve enacted increasingly draconian laws against protesting.
The current rule should be more accurately interpreted as “Your Labor MP will vote according to what party leadership believes will keep their donors happy”. It would be more honest.
On Cheng Lei
Michael Stanley writes: As someone who worked a number of different jobs (including state media) in China over a period of 10 years, I found myself oddly in agreement with Cheng Lei’s observations. She shows nuance and understanding beyond what might be expected of her given the experience she had to endure. The sort of nuance that is totally absent in The Sydney Morning Herald where Hartcher, Bagshaw and Knott sprout the sort of cartoon commentary that saw Knott rightly savaged by former prime minister Paul Keating.
What puzzles me is why an intelligent woman like Cheng Lei would demean herself and her chance to be a real voice of knowledge and experience on her country of birth by choosing to work with a TV outfit like Sky rather than the ABC or SBS.
On Chris Minns and greyhound racing
Judy Hungerford writes: As a result of NSW Premier Chris Minns’ gutless and morally bankrupt attitude to the latest in a string of exposés on the greyhound racing industry, I have just phoned his office to tell him that, as a longtime Labor voter, he has lost my vote for good.
Not content with Minns’ wishy-washy response to the latest evidence of abject cruelty, it is being seen as likely that former Labor leader Luke Foley, who argued vociferously against a racing ban in 2016, will lead the “review”.
Minns has said, even before the “review” has started, that he will not stop the industry. In fact the NSW racing minister said “the NSW government will continue to work with [Greyhound Racing NSW] and greyhound racing participants to ensure the viability and longevity of the industry”.
