source : the age
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@theage.com.au. Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Nick O’Malley (“We broke our covenant with the future” 5/9) highlights our failure to tackle the climate emergency and our likely dire future. Meanwhile, Anthony Albanese justifies opening 36 new fossil fuel developments by stating we can’t shut down fossil fuels overnight.
Only a blind idealist would argue for an immediate shutdown of fossil fuels and that is not what climate groups have argued for. The ALP’s failure to tax fossil fuel exports and stop the industry’s expansion is clear indication its aim is really to get out of fossil fuels as slowly as possible while keeping mining company support. The policies of the LNP are worse, and those of One Nation diabolical.
We require urgent and significant changes that only government can implement, and yet it’s not happening. However, the solution is in our hands. About 80 per cent of Australians believe more action is needed to tackle climate change. If a large proportion of them put active pressure on their MPs, government would be forced to act.
Unfortunately, too many have been seduced by the fossil fuel industry’s focus on limiting their “individual carbon footprint”. Individuals can’t fix this. We get the government we deserve and the solutions to tackling climate change can be achieved if enough of us pressure them to act – for us.
Peter Cook, Essendon
Choice is simple for survival
It boggles my mind that there is even a discussion about the reality of climate change. Scientists have been warning us for decades that a failure to act will be deadly. Just look around at the global deaths, devastations and disasters currently in the news, yet many still refuse to believe it.
It boils down to one question: which do we want more? A short-term, head-in-the-sand approach of doing nothing and hoping all will be OK? Or, embracing reality and taking steps to (hopefully) enable a liveable future for our children and grandchildren?
Joyce Butcher, Williamstown
Earth’s delicate balance
In an otherwise excellent article (5/9) Nick O’Malley inadvertently highlights the very reason we may not extricate ourselves from the environmental mess that we have created.
In saying, ″ the world we are left with will be permanently damaged by (fossil fuels) at immeasurable cost to human life … let alone to the natural world”, he highlights the “us” and “them” thinking that does not yet accept that living things are inextricably linked, we are just one species in this delicate balance. In my opinion, until we change that mindset, extinction of our species is on the cards.
Keven Doman, Grovedale
Murdoch is a businessman, not a sun king
Gabriel Sherman’s article (″How Murdoch the Sun King sold out the planet″, 5/9) would fail almost any test of rational thinking and reasoning. He asserts that Rupert Murdoch has done more than any other living person to cause governments not to act to cut emissions.
Murdoch might be interested to know the evidence Sherman used to claim he somehow controls the decisions of the ruling elites in the world’s biggest emitters China, Russia, India, or even the US.
The Obama and Biden administrations won office despite any opposition from Fox News commentators, and I am not convinced Donald Trump takes advice from anyone, no matter how well-informed or sympathetic to the Republican cause.
As for Sherman’s criticism of Murdoch for being beholden to the ideology of profit, and giving customers what they want to read or hear, surely, that is just good business sense for any company operating in a competitive market?
Would Sherman have Nine’s outlets not seek to give readers and viewers what they want: surely, a recipe for going out of business ? Even the taxpayer-funded ABC cancels programs that consistently fail to attract viewers, no matter how “worthy” the program might have been.
William Vickers, Melbourne
THE FORUM
Dump trams for buses
In contrast to your correspondent (Letters, 6/9), I do not think it is a good idea to go back to the old tram system. Trams are a pain in the backside at the best of times, and a disaster at others.
Who thought it was a good idea to block a tram with 50 or 100 people inside because a car wants to turn right? Who thought it was a good idea to create a lethally dangerous situation for pushbike riders in the tiniest bit of rain?
Electric buses are the answer to today’s problems: they are flexible in their tracks and on their routes, they can go wherever they are needed, so let’s design a network of them where they are needed today. And if that changes tomorrow, we can easily change that. And all that at a fraction of the price for trams or trains, be they above or below ground.
Dieter Liebrich, Swanpool
Alight at your peril
The saga of Melbourne’s inaccessible tram stops provides adequate plot material for a full series of Utopia (″Dozens of tram stops have been upgraded, but wheelchair users still can’t board″, 6/9).
After decades of deferring upgrades ahead of the 2022 deadline of the Disability Discrimination Act, new non-compliant stops are now pretending to be relocated existing stops.
Along with constraining the lives of disabled people, this limits anyone with a pram or shopping jeep. But communities anticipating upgrades should remain vigilant, as some “level access” platform configurations may not be safe.
The northern stops on Route 96 directs 60 km/h arterial traffic over the platform via stunt ramps with no provision for cyclist safety, leaving a narrow footpath shared by waiting tram patrons, passing pedestrians, mobility scooters, and kids riding (legally) to adjacent primary schools.
Frequently, trucks and cars pass stationary trams as people alight. Superficial consultation prior to these works avoided any informed scrutiny by refusing to share design details.
Rod Duncan, Brunswick East
Starry-eyed council
My Maroondah Council 2026-27 budget and rates pamphlet includes a list of 15 projects identified for delivery over the next 12 months. Five of these are described as either a vision, a strategy or a project, and two involved ″well-being″ ″transformation″ and ″liveability″. Only one mentioned new footpaths.
I just endured several years of noise, dust and traffic disruptions due to the creation of new stations at Ringwood and East Ringwood, and the admittedly very welcome loss of several level crossings. Now, my journey to and from my pharmacy and shops in Heathmont involves two U-turns because of roadworks on Canterbury and Bedford roads, the latter seeming to have permanently narrowed the road.
Would it be possible for the mayor to descend from his idealistic cloud and fill the potholes in the roads which aren’t currently being dug up?
Maggie Peck, Ringwood
Social housing
How heartening to see the United Nations criticise the Victorian government’s decision to demolish 44 public housing towers, warning that the policy could violate the international human right to housing.
What is deeply disturbing is the way this government has pursued the demolitions – seemingly with the mindset of a property developer rather than a government with a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable citizens.
There was no meaningful prior consultation with the people whose lives would be turned upside down. These towers are not simply concrete structures to be demolished and replaced. They are homes. They provide security, stability, and community to people who often have very few other options.
For three years, since this policy was first announced, advocates for public housing have fought against it, but there has been no widespread community uproar.
How can we accept the demolition of existing homes during a housing crisis? The irony is particularly stark when, across Melbourne, expensive new build-to-rent apartments are being promoted while some of our most vulnerable citizens are being told that their homes are no longer good enough.
The Victorian government should be providing more secure, affordable public housing – not destroying it.
Sue McNamara, Rye
Build-to-rent furphy
I am glad The Age has investigated the build-to-rent model (“Not buying it”, 5/9) before it takes further root in our housing market. It seems to primarily benefit developers over renters – with generous state absentee land tax exemptions
BTR apartments are not a way of increasing housing affordability in Australia, given rents are typically significantly higher than suburban medians (up to 70 per cent). They also don’t seem a sustainable rental option, as long-term rental contracts in European countries are because rents here are not capped.
I also wonder about commitment to basic maintenance of buildings. From your report, early adopters are planning to move out, apartments are slow to rent due to the higher costs – and they end up being packed with foreign students.
BTR is another lurk for developers to exploit government subsidies, fast-tracked approvals and land tax reductions. Yet again, young Australians are denied genuinely affordable housing.
Caroline Leslie, Hawthorn
Anti-boy nonsense
As a teacher, I am tired of politicians using schools as fodder for the latest culture war. Federal Opposition Leader Angus Taylor suggesting teachers are “pushing agendas”, while Nationals leader Matt Canavan labelling Respectful Relationships “anti-boy” and pointing to his own son having to “endure” these lessons, is particularly disappointing coming from two national leaders.
Around one in five Australian women have experienced sexual violence, while a recent Monash University survey of more than 2600 teachers found 78 per cent had witnessed or experienced sexism or misogyny in schools.
Yet, while teachers are dealing with the very real influence of Andrew Tate-style misogyny among young people, the Nationals’ leader suggests teaching boys about respect, consent and gender equality might somehow be driving them towards it. Quite the intellectual somersault.
Respectful Relationships is not an attack on boys. Teaching empathy, consent, healthy relationships and positive masculinity gives our boys tools to navigate an increasingly ugly online world. Given the violence women and girls continue to experience in Australia, surely, the evidence points to more thoughtful education in this space, not less.
Debate education policy, absolutely. But our political leaders should bring evidence, not outrage.
Jessica Bowey, Haven
Loaded reference
Re “Eye of the Trump storm” (Spectrum, 5/9). This profile of Kim Sajet is largely a study of Trump’s assault on America’s cultural institutions, but makes a passing reference to NGV protests over its Jewish donors that sits uneasily.
The article states protesters objected to the gallery’s “high-profile Jewish donors” – but this blurs an important distinction. The demonstrations targeted John and Pauline Gandel’s public support for the Israeli government’s actions, not their Jewish identity. Conflating criticism of a state’s policies with hostility towards a faith or ethnicity does a disservice to readers and to social cohesion.
It also makes honest conversation about both the Israel-Palestine conflict and antisemitism harder, not easier.
Adnan Mansour, Armadale
New world order
The UN has voted to adopt a new map that more accurately reflects the size of nations on earth. The vote was 164 in favour, one against, six abstained. The only nation to vote against was the US.
Its reasons not to support the resolution were that it was an ″ideological agenda″ and was a distraction from the ″genuine problems of international peace, prosperity or good relations″. Someone obviously forgot to let the president know that that is America’s position.
Tom Stafford, Wheelers Hill
Wildcard irrelevance
The real test of the success of the AFL’s Wildcard concept introduced for the 2026 finals series is not the numbers who attended the games or the consequent television ratings, but the competitive outcomes for the clubs involved.
In the 10 years to 2025 since the AFL introduced the pre-finals bye, at least one of the teams finishing in seventh or eighth position has progressed to the semi-finals on eight occasions. Several went even further.
Famously, the Western Bulldogs won the premiership from seventh place in 2016. Greater Western Sydney in 2023 qualified for a preliminary final from seventh. Last year, Hawthorn progressed to a preliminary final from eighth position.
This year, with the introduction of a so-called Wildcard Round pitting the clubs from seventh to 10th against each other, the seventh and eighth-placed clubs, no longer with a bye to prepare for a finals campaign, were obviously disadvantaged.
We now have the outcome. Not one of the four clubs involved in Wildcard progressed beyond the elimination round. For seventh and eighth, Wildcard was a detour to irrelevance.
By expanding the finals to more than half the teams in the competition, an absurdity in itself, the AFL has diminished the prospects for the real wildcard – a charge at the premiership from the bottom reaches of the eight.
Ian Munro, Albert Park
AND ANOTHER THING
World map
I think it’s a very good idea for the UN to adopt a new world map to correct colonial bias (6/9), particularly since it seems to be the Robinson projection (no relation though, pity). It still has distortions particularly at the poles. The Antarctic is shown to be enormous and stretched.
Wayne Robinson, Kingsley, WA
I think America voted against the new world map because it made it look smaller. There is a positive in the new map for Greenland because it, too, looks smaller, and therefore less attractive to Trump. But beware Australia, we have now become a bigger target for his attention.
Tim Crawford, Boat Harbour Beach, Tas
Victoria
Jess Wilson says abortion laws will not change under a Liberal-National party. But what if the puppet master (One Nation) is pulling the LNP strings?
Marie Nash, Balwyn
Are there more potholes in Victoria this year? (“Victoria’s deepening pothole crisis”, 6/9). They have lost count, I think. But probably.
Murray Horne, Cressy
Furthermore
Rather than quibbling about the tax on tobacco products, governments should spend more on the simple message that smoking kills and makes your breath stink.
Juliet Flesch, Kew
Do we want young people to be able to buy houses or not?
Malcolm McDonald, Burwood
Keep it simple stupid. Ban the application of algorithms.
Elisabeth Schiller, Glen Iris
As a totally impartial, objective, considered, and thoughtful football follower, nothing pleases me more than seeing interstate football teams lose in the finals.
David Cayzer, Clifton Hill
Given the Swans’ emphatic win over the Lions, the club now can dispose of its dropped boys without worrying about the finals or the future. Let the trades begin.
Martin Newington, Aspendale
The opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.
