Credit: Cathy Wilcox
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.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
How interesting all of the writers suddenly support free speech (“‘Not a time for silence’: More than 30 authors quit Bendigo Writers Festival”, 15/8). I recall how some among this number, via social media, derided the Harper’s Letter defending free expression (“A Letter on Justice and Open Debate”) claiming those who had done no wrong need not fear “cancellation”.
I wonder how many of those boycotting the Bendigo Writers Festival supported Richard Flanagan in his defence of Lionel Shriver’s free speech in 2016? Or put their names out there to defend Bob Carr and Germaine Greer after they were apparently uninvited from the Brisbane Writers Festival in 2018?
The oppression of free expression has escalated to the point that I have all but stopped submitting my writing to competitions. Many organisers feel entitled to tell writers what to write and how to think. Almost all now seem to have undefined offence clauses. Some literary magazines reserve the right to de-platform a writer if, at some future time, the writer does not conform to the publication’s ideology. This boycott is a selective defence of free speech – when the writers who pulled out of Bendigo defend J.K. Rowling’s right to free expression, or others with whom they disagree, it might be possible to take them seriously.
Susan Bennett, address supplied
Speaking freely
It seems odd to write about writers not being able to speak freely. Unfortunately, the Bendigo Writers Festival organisers have “gone down the rabbit hole” by banning so much. Some things should be banned – racism, violence, sexism and hopefully Trump – but problems can’t be solved until they are identified and discussed.
Dennis Fitzgerald, Box Hill
Shutting down dialogue
As soon as you say to someone, “You can’t say that” you immediately deny the existence, benefits, challenges, and revelations of participating in the free expression of thoughts. This is, then, the realm of despots, ideologues, and frightened people, based on distrust of the other. From that position unfortunate decisions are made. Shut down by the corrective, the speaker has a choice: go on saying what they want to say as plainly as they first spoke somewhere else, say it but hedge it with euphemisms and other rhetorical devices, or leave processing the embedded message that they should not expect anyone to be interested in what they think; they are marginal, and should have no right to expect understanding with the other, and, worse by far, are distrusted. Anger is a reasonable consequence of all of that. Once anger takes over, they may well believe that the only way to be heard is to confront. The two “sides” are disagreeing about the limitations put on speaking rather than the ideas they want to share.
How does each side manage to meet? Where does the courage come from to confront the challenges to your idea of the status quo? How does a society acknowledge it is changing, find the tools to adapt, celebrate its old, new, and evolving values, and nullify the “enemies” of its population? It takes a fair bit of creativity and not a small jot of courage to see around these issues.
The only thing wrong with diversity in a society is the tendency for people not to recognise they are part of it. Artists are defunded and their work taken out of exhibitions. Writers’ festivals put in codes of conduct rather than invitations to listen.
Rhonda Pelletier, Grovedale
Deeply disappointed
As a graduate of the university I’m disappointed and disgusted at La Trobe University’s treatment of the writers at the Bendigo Writers Festival. It seems to me that the university has allowed a small but not insignificant pressure group to manoeuvre it into a position of weakness that led to the partial collapse of the festival. I’ve been a proud graduate and supporter of the university over the years but this decision may make me reconsider my future involvement and support of La Trobe.
Felix Carra, Ivanhoe
THE FORUM
Regulation merited
Why did the Productivity Commission’s Danielle Wood choose such a repulsive simile to describe government regulation (“Cough up ‘regulatory hairballs’, says PC boss”, 18/8)? Why does Treasurer Jim Chalmers refer so derisively to “red tape in areas from housing to mining approvals”? Government regulations include essential protections for the natural and built environment, living standards and public health and safety. Experience shows that when the protections are left to market forces as Chalmers and Wood seem to be advocating, they disappear. Society is harmed and people suffer.
Lawrie Bradly, Surrey Hills
Valued oversight
With the Business Council of Australia lobbying for ever-more cuts to red tape, the productivity summit might consider what reducing regulatory oversight means for the childcare industry, disability support and aged care sectors. We know what lack of oversight and enforcement means for the care and protection of our most vulnerable community members. It hasn’t turned out well.
Max Sargent, Thornbury
Just do it
Reaching consensus on how to reform the Australian tax system seems unlikely. At the most basic level, there is little agreement as to what such reform even means. To some people, tax reform means finding ways to raise more tax revenue. Others argue the government would not need to raise more money if it spent what it already has more effectively.
Some people say wealthy people and high-income earners should pay more. Others say they should not be penalised for their hard work and smart use of current tax arrangements.
Raising and/or broadening the GST is often suggested, until the regressive effects are considered.
Maybe rather than hoping to reach agreement on tax reform at a roundtable, or in the community, the government should just announce some significant changes to the tax system and be willing to face the consequences.
Rod Wise, Surrey Hills
Show your mettle
US President Donald Trump went into his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin an aggressive peacemaker and came out purring like a pussy cat (“The art of the ‘no deal’: How the Trump-Putin meeting unfolded”, 16/8). Who would have guessed? At least the performance by Trump has bought the European countries of NATO out into the cold light of day.
It is no longer possible for them to shelter under the tattered umbrella of the United States.
Putin wants Ukraine, and nobody would expect Russia not to prevail – their military might is just too strong. So now it’s up to the European countries in NATO.
Unfortunately, issuing press releases championing the Ukrainian cause and blowing kisses to President Volodymyr Zelensky is no longer going to cut it. Either Britain, France, Germany and other European NATO countries form a coalition of the willing or they accept Russia expanding its territory in Eastern Europe at least up to the northern boundaries of Ukraine.
Putin sees nothing but timidity from the European NATO countries – so the time has come either to call his bluff or be content with a dramatic expansion of Russian territory into Western Europe.
Robert Dean, Hawthorn East
A good start
I’m amazed by the number of your correspondents who are criticising Donald Trump for not stopping the Ukraine-Russia war. I’m just pleased that for the first time in a long time, the leaders of the United States and Russia are talking (and not firing nuclear missiles at one another). The causes of this war are complex and need to be resolved before there can be a secure peace.
The demand for a quick resolution is impractical and unreasonable, and is being used to pile undeserved criticism on Trump. There are plenty of things he has done wrong; opening up dialogue with Russia is not one of them.
Peter Martina, Warrnambool
More whistles
Rarely a week goes by without decisions by AFL umpires being heavily criticised by both supporters and in the footy media. There’s no doubt that AFL is by far the most difficult sport for umpires and referees to adjudicate, with the size of the field, the 36 players involved in the play, and the incredible pace of the game.
The many rules such as holding the ball, push in the back, interference in marking contests are all very subjective, so it’s little wonder that the match officials don’t always get it right.
Originally, only one field umpire controlled each game, but this increased to two in 1976, then to three in 1994, and four in 2023.
Despite these increases, the overall decision-making by umpires does not appear to have improved exponentially. In fact, it is not uncommon for one umpire close to the action to award a free kick and have this overturned by another positioned further away.
It is out of the question to introduce a procedure where umpiring decisions are reviewed by the AFL Review Centre, like they do in the NRL. The continuity of play in Aussie rules has always been one of the biggest appeals for spectators of the game compared with other football codes.
The AFL should seriously consider giving whistles to the four boundary and two goal umpires. They are all closely engaged in the battle of play, and the extra six sets of eyes could well give us the outcomes that we all cherish, less bad decisions on the day.
Will Muskens, Bardon, Qld
Simple solution
Michael Gleeson on the varying impact of umpiring errors (“Crow throws and the free kick that wasn’t: Adelaide’s luck turns”, 17/8) highlights the obvious point that the laws of Aussie rules can be “silly”.
Good luck explaining the game to a first-time spectator. If the AFL seeks to protect and recruit umpires, the rules need simplifying. This will bring clarity that can aid umpires, players and fans.
Justin O’Halloran, Clifton Hill
Much to play for
The last few AFL games for teams unable to make the finals might not mean much to some people but I am sure they mean plenty for young players striving to make a good impression. As for the oldies like Patrick Cripps, the look on his face after a win and chance to end the year on a positive note spoke volumes. Just as during the season, there have been some lacklustre hitouts, but I bet Carlton and Essendon on Thursday night will be of great interest to supporters with a lot of young players on display giving their all to make a good impression. Dwindling crowds are to be expected, but I wouldn’t be surprised if plenty of Blues and Bombers fans turn up to the MCG on Thursday night.
John Rawson, Mernda
Vibrant precinct
I was surprised on reading “The street’s dead: Inner-city strip struggles with nighttime lull” (17/8) as I did not recognise my local shopping strip. The implication and accompanying photo gave the impression of several empty shops sitting below tired facades which collect graffiti due to neglect.
The graffiti depicted has been there for many years. While it would be good to see Yarra Council clean this up, it is no indication of neglect or apathy on the part of business owners.
The end of the street near Fledgling Cafe is still a vibrant and bustling precinct, particularly at the weekend when the footpath becomes congested with shoppers and cafe-goers on both sides of Rathdowne Street. It needs to be mentioned that there is an abundance of cafes in this area, so competition is fierce.
While evening dining is quieter in the winter months, the warmer months attract lively crowds indoors and out. Rathdowne Village has exactly the right mix of charm, quality shopping and an array of dining choices. I feel blessed to live in this area.
Sue Lyons, Carlton North
Incentivise action
Ask any trader in Rathdowne or Nicholson streets why they’re struggling or selling up. It’s spiralling rent. You can’t and don’t need to ask the owners of the Victorian shopfronts blighting Nicholson Street why they’re empty – some derelict for over 25 years. It’s a no-brainer: their inherited capital gains mean they’re cashing in effortlessly. And further largesse is guaranteed as planning regulation is captured by the property lobbies.
The Henry George League, with an office in Melbourne, argues convincingly that our taxation system is over-reliant on revenue raised from productive activity (making, selling, servicing), while insufficiently taxing use of land and natural resources.
Rather than despair at the prospect of the 2026 Victorian election, is it possible to mobilise support for state taxation reform, much as the teals did for climate change action?
Angela Munro, Carlton North
Time saver
The idea that petrol cars refuel faster than EVs is a myth (Letters, 18/8). A petrol stop usually takes
10 minutes or more once you factor in driving in, waiting, pumping, paying inside, and the regular hours lost each year to servicing. An EV, on the other hand, is refuelled at home — every morning starts with a full battery and no wasted time at a servo. Given that the average person drives less than 100 kilometres a day, most owners rarely need public charging, and so-called “range anxiety” all but disappears.
One winter day, I took a trip I hadn’t planned for and needed extra range. My EV directed me to a fast charger, pre-warmed the battery on the way, and five minutes of charging was all it took to return home — to be fed again overnight by my personal pump.
Charging is also much cheaper than petrol, even without solar. However, if you can’t charge at home, I doubt an EV is a sensible choice. And on top of all that, EVs deliver sparkling acceleration.
David Milner, Port Melbourne
AND ANOTHER THING
Credit: Matt Golding
Productivity
Danielle Wood, chair of the Productivity Commission, said a carbon price “is the best way to achieve a decrease in carbon emissions”. I’ll say it out loud for Jim Chalmers: Australia needs a carbon tax.
John Hughes, Mentone
Remind me again, how well has the removal of red tape and the subsequent increase in self-regulation gone in the childcare sector for example?
Phil Alexander, Eltham
One can only hope that Ross Gittins is at the economic roundtable to dispense some sense (“Want better productivity? Keep wages rising strongly”, 18/8).
Vicki Jordan, Lower Plenty
Putin and Trump
Vladimir Putin is a master of the lesson “grab ’em by their balls and their hearts and minds will follow”, which he is busy teaching an obedient and compliant Donald Trump. Conversely, Volodymyr Zelensky must be a slow learner as he keeps fighting Putin.
Robyn Westwood, Heidelberg Heights
To be clear, President Zelensky was not humiliated last time he visited the White House (as some have suggested). The humiliation should go to Trump, his thugs in the room and the people of America who watched the embarrassing spectacle of them replacing diplomacy with schoolyard bullying.
Phill Goode, Southbank
Is Donald Trump trying to win the Nobel “appease” prize?
Paul Miller, Albury
Trump’s reported statement on his negotiations with Putin that “there’s no deal until there’s a deal” is a rare instance of him making a truthful, verifiable, and insightful comment on any of the major issues facing the world.
Harry Zable, Campbells Creek
Finally
I’m fearful of venturing to the ’G without earplugs to see Cats v Tigers, not because of the crowd noise but because of AFL’s “enhanced experience”. To quietly share the intricacies of the game with six-year-old grandchildren adds the hype I need.
George Reed, Wheelers Hill
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.
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.