On Gladys Berejiklian’s failed corruption appeal
Jackson Harding writes: Why on earth should Gladys lose her pension? She has not yet been convicted of anything. She’s found to have been corruptly flinging largesse towards her undoubtedly dodgy boyfriend, but until she is tried and convicted in a criminal court the law says she keeps her pension. Removing her pension — which is for service — for a non-offence, even if her conduct was below that expected, sets a very dangerous precedent.
This smacks of trial-by-media. Convict her first, then she should lose everything.
So far she has lost her reputation and probably has significantly reduced employment prospects, and for the time being that should be punishment enough.
Roger Collins writes: I find it difficult to understand how an individual found to have engaged in “serious corrupt behaviour” is not evaluated in a court of law. Add to this that she continues to protest her innocence and claim she only sought to serve the people of NSW selflessly.
Cases like this undermine the public’s confidence in our legal and investigative systems. It is a tragedy that such an otherwise talented person displays a Shakespearean flaw in such a public forum, seemingly oblivious to her lack of self-insight.
On the gas lobby’s unchecked power
Gary Russell writes: I read Anjali Sharma’s article about the federal government rubber-stamping approvals to foreign corporations to explore new gas fields and felt my usual flush of dismay and disapproval. The problem rests in our incapacity to control the exploitation of Australian natural resources and it’s been in full swing now for most of the last 100 years.
Unlike Norway, which has controlled the development of its own gas and oil reserves for the benefit of Norwegian citizens, we have been allowing the robber baron foreign corporations to control virtually all aspects of resource extraction and utilisation.
Donald Horne’s ironic words about Australia being “a lucky country run by second-rate people who share in its luck” is as relevant in 2024 as when he penned it in 1964.
I despair of Australia ever reaching maturity as a sovereign state while we continue to allow foreign corporations and their shareholders to dictate terms to us, and while we decline to hold them to account with facts and evidence.
Robyn McLachlan writes: I am absolutely outraged at the gas exploration approvals given to major companies by our current government. This action contradicts what I thought was Labor policy, ignores climate change imperatives and is a slap in the face to all of us who voted for the current government believing they intended to take climate change seriously. The approach should be to secure home supply of gas to provide for the electric transition by reducing exports — particularly to Japan who are on-selling Australian gas at a profit. Ridiculous!
On the criminalisation of peaceful protest
Glenn Jones writes: I do not consider standing in front of a fully-laden train peaceful. Anything could go wrong. There were near misses in the Hunter Valley when these disruptions were happening. Did Anjali Sharma mention the effect some of these near misses had on the train crews that were visibly shaken by these “peaceful” protests? Or is that just collateral damage for the cause?
While I support the cause I do not support or condone protests that could lead to a fatality. Block mine gates, picket Port Waratah Coal Services, climb Parliament House or whatever… but do not involve innocent people who are just doing their job.
On the prospect of a Rex bailout
Bernie Stever writes: Successive governments have sold off various entities since the 1980s, under the mantra of the private sector being best suited to run businesses. This has resulted in the government abrogating itself of its service provision to society in order to save money. Meanwhile, the new owners raise prices in search of profits, and seek tax benefits, subsidies and other protections.
When a business is run by the government (e.g. Commonwealth Bank or Qantas) it forces regulations compliance and offers a marketplace where price controls can be implemented. Not through legislation specifically but rather through market conditions — an informal system, if you will.
Ultimately, the government having a hands-off approach to public services has cost more, become more inefficient, less robust and ultimately more expensive while ensuring the benefits go to fewer people. Let’s not even go down the path of mining royalties and associated tax benefits to multinational corporations. Government, by being a player, ensures a level playing field for everyone.
