Your Say gives readers a chance to tell Crikey what they think about the stories we’ve published. Today you weigh in on John Barilaro’s “shitshow”, Pauline Hanson’s and Peter Dutton’s blatant and shameless plays for power, and a Voice to Parliament.
On John Barilaro and the NY job
Martin Carey writes: Regrettably the behaviour of John Barilaro has once again demonstrated the unacceptable conduct of some politicians. Politicians are required to work for their electorate and pass legislation to benefit the state or the country. Applying that legislation is the responsibility of public servants and they should be allowed to do their work without interference from politicians.
Hayden McMillan writes: Sadly we have become accustomed — via Morrison and broader LNP history of lies and half-truths — to Barilaro’s efforts to explain away his interference in due process for the obvious goal of a plum after-politics gig, highlighting how out of touch it is with basic moral accountability. Under scrutiny, his best explanation is so full of holes we can all see right through it. Let us hope this is the tail end of an appalling pattern of entitlement attributed to having “served” the electorate in any party at any level.
Denise McHugh writes: I’ve just been looking at the CVs of the candidates and you would have to call into question the competency of the panel. Barilaro — aside from being a pretty ordinary trade minister — has nothing.
Roy Ramage writes: Time and again we watch these scenes play out. Mediocre politicians being given lucrative jobs by their parliamentary mates. Meanwhile the people most qualified and most necessary for successful public outcomes miss out. Australian taxpayers are the losers.
On Pauline Hanson’s relevance
Ray Howson writes: Senator Hanson has always practised the politics of hate and division, as pointed out in your article. She was disendorsed by the LNP for speaking the language it wanted to speak but couldn’t politically, and it used preference swaps to keep her and her vote in the Senate, ensuring it would have someone to speak its divisive language for it.
She sells herself as the battlers’ advocate while voting against their best interests at every opportunity. She will make a lot of noise which will be amplified by those at Sky after dark and the Murdoch tabloids. Thankfully her votes now will mean nothing, and she will become a person of little consequence.
Phil Walcott writes: No, Pauline Hanson offers nothing constructive within the 47th Parliament. She is divisive, racist, self-absorbed, pretentious and lacking in moral fortitude. Sadly the Senate and Australia are stuck with her vile presence for another six years. Fortunately, however, she doesn’t hold any sway as far as numbers go in the Senate. The independent member for the ACT, David Pocock, along with more reasoned and intelligent Labor, LNP and Greens senators will dampen her impact.
On Peter Dutton’s fossilised views
Ute Mueller writes: We live in exciting times. Hardly a day goes by when no new rorts, lies
and other shortcomings of the previous government are revealed. One would expect that Peter Dutton, the new leader of the Coalition, would look for a big hole to hide in for deceiving Australians so profoundly — until things have been smoothed out or peoples’ memories have failed. But not him. In his usual aggressive way, he criticises the Albanese government for doing precisely what it was voted in for: fixing the energy and climate change situation as soon as possible. Dutton calls it dangerous. After doing nothing for nearly a decade that is quite astonishing.
On an ‘elitist’ Voice to Parliament
Mary Davies writes: Anthony Albanese’s drive for a Voice to Parliament is not elitist. It’s the opposite. It’s democratic. First Nations peoples are too often not consulted on matters they know best. If Australia is serious about closing the gap, Australians will support the Voice wholeheartedly. Until First Nations peoples are heard instead of managed the gap will continue to grow.
Liz Thornton writes: We came to Australia more than 30 years ago after living in the UK and then South Africa. Our experience of apartheid in South Africa had helped form our feelings around fairness and equality, and at that time Australia seemed to have good human rights attitudes. But over the years we have seen an increase in racism, and when we read Indigenous accounts of history it became clear colonists had whitewashed history in favour of “benevolent missionaries” helping “poor Aborigines” learn a foreign language and removing children as slavery and alcohol took over their parents’ lives.
A Voice is urgent, and the Uluru Statement from the Heart is well researched and must be respected as the base for a referendum. Labor was elected because it touched places which had shut down in the LNP reign of terror. Greens and independents now must push for decency in government and the media need to get with a new way.
Marian Arnold writes: I am non-Indigenous but a fervent supporter of the Voice. It is elitist in the sense that Jacinta Price identifies, in that there is a decent percentage of Indigenous people clinging to survival with little time or space in their lives for the luxury of political engagement. (I would add that there are non-Indigenous people in the same boat who also will get to vote in the referendum.)
An investment in politics, at a minimal level, is a luxury afforded to those of us with sufficient income and education to be interested. Given that non-Indigenous people have been disrespecting the owners of this land for well over 200 years and counting, the least we can do is support a Voice to Parliament.
On media negativity on gender in sports
Paul Johanson writes: Chris Mitchell, former editor of The Australian, tweeted in April: “The transgender athlete debate in women’s sport could not be more important to voters and parents with female children.” This doesn’t even make my top 100 concerns! Climate change? War in Europe? Coronavirus? Nope. An athlete’s genitalia is the big issue.
Seth Tyler writes: I think you give News Corp too much credit for its role in beating the conservative drum. Australians who don’t support such initiatives aren’t anti-LGBTIQA+. They just don’t want political activism to become normalised in their sport because it’s their one release from relentless propaganda. They’d simply like to enjoy a game of footy without being bombarded with leftist hectoring. Australians aren’t bigots and we don’t need a “support our virtue signalling or else” agenda forced on us. How about a “leave us the hell alone for 80 lousy minutes” jersey?
If something in Crikey has got you fired up, let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
