Illustration: Cathy WilcoxCredit:
To submit a letter to The Age, email [email protected]. Please include your home address and telephone number. No attachments, please include your letter in the body of the email.
THE BABY BOOMERS
This is a class problem, not a generational one
It was nice to see Jacqueline Maley acknowledging that, while growing up in postwar Australia presented many opportunities for people to build an asset base and lay the foundations for a comfortable retirement, it wasn’t handed to them on a platter (“Hey, Boomers, you got lucky, now what about your legacy?”, The Sunday Age, 26/6). However there are several inferences in the article that are misleading.
First, Gough Whitlam did not abolish tertiary education fees until 1974. So the earliest decade of Boomers had to pay fees to go to university.
Second, many Boomers like myself certainly benefited professionally from membership of a strong and assertive trade union, but it is not the Boomers’ fault that the conservative politician/business sector coalition has succeeded in persuading Millennials and Gen-Xers to desert unions in all but a handful of industries.
Maley does acknowledge that resistance to much-needed income/wealth redistribution tax reform is a social class, not generational, phenomenon. Some of the strongest supporters of Tim Wilson’s 2019 election campaign to keep the franking credits gift and capital gains tax discount were the offspring of wealthy Boomers (and older) with an eye to their inheritance.
Bill King, Camberwell
Forget blame and focus on responsibility
Forget vilification and blame. When considering current crises, particularly climate, we should focus on responsibility and, as Jacqueline Maley writes, legacy.
In developed nations, as a group, those over 60 now have the highest carbon footprint of any age group. They also own more than half of Australia’s wealth, which is, often unknowingly, supporting fossil fuels. Thus, older Australians’ collective potential to contribute to climate solutions is considerable.
We who are alive right now will determine our Earth’s climate trajectory. Each of us has an opportunity and responsibility to support our anxious and motivated young people by creating the safest possible future. Now that’s a legacy worth striving for.
Amy Hiller, Kew
Once something is given, it’s difficult to remove it
Bill Shorten tried to address the perks of the wealthy and the Boomer generation in the 2019 election and was soundly defeated by Scott Morrison. Once something is given to a particular group it’s very difficult politically to remove it.
Now that he has said he will reduce the support staff of independent MPs, Anthony Albanese is about to find out this truism when he tries to get his legislation passed.
We are all basically selfish and couldn’t give a damn about anybody else. Some might call it intergenerational theft on a grand scale by the “OK Boomers”.
Paul Chivers, Box Hill North
We didn’t all ‘get lucky’
Jacqueline Maley’s commonly used catch-all characterisation of the Baby Boomer generation “getting lucky” obscures some fundamental points.
Not all of them “got lucky”. Many working-class Boomers worked their butts off in lower-paid jobs and paid mortgages over 25 years to get the one house they could call home.
I know because I’m one of them and we were and are the majority of the Boomers. Those few who became wealthy are the same tiny minority who were able to accumulate more wealth through having some wealth in the first place.
So although I generally admire this writer’s articles, I object to being tarred with the same brush as those to whom accumulation of more wealth is the meaning of life.
Vaughan Greenberg, Chewton
THE FORUM
The message has been lost
It seems that our new government does not fully understand the message sent by the electorate on May 21. This failing is difficult to understand, given that the ALP gained less than one-third of the primary vote.
It should have been clear that the electorate does not entirely trust a new Labor government to embark on a sufficiently radical reform program. To counter this, about one-quarter of us decided that, although there was no prospect of the Greens or “teals” forming a government, they would make an ideal ginger group.
To attempt to nobble this group, by drastically reducing their staffer numbers, is the first major mistake of the Albanese government. It is either a simple error of judgment or a petulant rejection of the wishes of a significant proportion of the electorate.
After such a promising start, does the Albanese government have the courage and political nous to at least negotiate a compromise with a group that could be the key to its success in the years ahead?
Ian Brown, Sandringham
Idea has merit
I wouldn’t be so dismissive about Anthony Albanese’s reduction of researchers for independent members of parliament. The MPs will have access to research professionals working in parliament whose job will be to assist them in addressing their concerns.
These staff probably have more knowledge and information available (through their experience and contacts with other staff) than an individual researcher employed by an MP would be able to access. They could hold joint sessions with the independents answering their questions and researching their concerns. As well, their advice would be neutral.
It may end up being an efficiency dividend for all concerned.
John Rome, Mount Lawley, WA
A frightening analysis
Maureen Dowd’s article (“When extremists make law”, Comment, 27/6) is a frightening and articulate analysis of the consequences of the US Supreme Court’s decision with regard to Roe v Wade.
She exposes the slow disintegration, hypocrisy and political opportunism that has resulted in the reproduction rights for women being abandoned. It further demonstrates the implosion that is occurring in America today.
The case of Anita Hill also indicates how powerful men are so often not held accountable for their actions.
As stated by Dowd, the Supreme Court is out of control. Let that be a lesson about how slowly and insidiously a human right can be forfeited.
Judith Morrison, Nunawading
This is essential work
I couldn’t agree more, Roshena Campbell (“Why are we throwing cash at childcare?”, Comment, 27/6). When my youngest was three I returned to the workforce, and for 15 years I managed big budgets, large teams and complex programs; a stressful job, even setting aside the juggle of work and family.
But compared to working as a stay-at-home mum, it was a snack. Caring for the young is essential work, often difficult and demanding, but like Campbell says, it matters, and supporting parents to take time out of the workforce to provide this care themselves reaps dividends in the long run.
Throwing real money at it makes it a viable option, but we need to agree that this work has value, that it is “work”. Calling for women to get “back to work” misses the point.
Anne Richardson, Hadfield
I’m not on board with this
I was shocked to read that two of the current board members of the Reserve Bank are associated with the Centre for Independent Studies (“RBA review into make-up of its board”, The Age, 27/6).
The Centre for Independent Studies, like the Institute of Public Affairs, is neither expert nor academic, but a propagandist for a libertarian and neoliberal social and economic ideology. These institutions promote small government, valued public institutions like Medicare are anathema to them.
Like the Socialist Alliance they are legitimately entitled to promote their ideology, but boards of important social and national institutions like the RBA are not the place for ideologues. Rather, we need people of expertise, with flexible minds and an understanding of the impact of economic trends on society.
Tony Liston, Middle Park
Overdue recognition
How wonderful to see Oliver Lancaster referenced for his ground-breaking statistical work that cracked open some vexing medical mysteries (“Number crunching? Stats entertainment”, The Age, 27/6).
Not only did Lancaster identify the link between rubella in pregnancy and congenital defects in children, but he also discovered the link between exposure to sunlight and incidence of melanoma. He had worked in the tropics and realised melanoma was much more common there than in higher latitudes. So in the 1950s he analysed the excellent statistics available in Australia, and gathered data from around the globe to confirm his theory.
Our “Slip, Slop, Slap” campaign stands on the shoulders of this great Australian pathologist and statistician, who applied maths to medicine. He deserves to be remembered.
Joan Reilly, Surrey Hills
If the AFL is serious …
There has been a lot of talk about the long-term impact to players of repeated concussions and the dangers posed by head-high contact in contact sports.
Suspending a player for a number of weeks might be viewed as a strong response, but it clearly isn’t strong enough. It is time for stronger measures if the head is truly to be protected.
If a player is suspended for head-high contact, the team should lose two points for every week of suspension. The result will be pressure from teammates to change attitudes that see far too many head hits.
If the AFL is serious about avoiding devastating long-term harm to its players, then it is time to really increase the consequences of this sort of behaviour.
Douglas Potter, Surrey Hills
A failure to respond
Sean Kelly’s analysis of the role of big business in blocking enlightened policies such as the carbon tax (“Big business, small mindedness”, Comment, 27/6) highlights the fact that many big businesses have failed to respond to our changing circumstances.
This can be also seen in our adversarial worker versus business model, where unions fight for improved wages and conditions and big business’ default position is to oppose all claims.
The most successful companies in the world have learnt that investing in their workforces – rather than just prioritising profits and shareholders – improves productivity and worker retention and satisfaction.
Gender and pay equality, parental and welfare leave, mental wellbeing programs, professional development, career paths and “all hands” input into company decision making are just some of the more enlightened policies of companies that prioritise the welfare of their workers.
Companies that continue to live in the past will find they continue to experience staff unrest and union action. Expecting workers to effectively accept a pay cut by not increasing wages to keep up with inflation is the type of antediluvian attitude that will only cultivate unrest and conflict in the workforce.
Graeme Lechte, Brunswick West
It’s a good measure
Your correspondent (“An exclusive index”, Letters, 27/6) assumes The Economist’s Global Liveability Index is for “well-heeled” international executives, and only those who live in a city can truly rate their city.
This index is usually very accurate as it is related to the urban quality of life based on assessments of stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education and infrastructure, according to The Economist Intelligence Unit.
It is also accurate for your average city dweller, regardless of the shoes they wear. The fact that Melbourne has slipped from number one (2017) to number 10 in 2022 reflects on the poor infrastructure, healthcare and chaotic education systems we have created. Culture and environment have also been treated poorly by successive Victorian governments. Other Australian cities have slipped even further.
Jeff McCormack, Javoricko, Czech Republic
Talk seems premature
Talk of stagflation seems a bit premature and pessimistic (“Warning to Australia as stagflation risk soars”, The Age, 27/6). For Australia to experience stagflation, inflation would have to remain high while unemployment rose sharply from its current 50-year low.
While he does not mention unemployment directly, Agustin Carstens, the general manager of the Bank of International Settlements and a former governor of the Bank of Mexico, says that central banks, such as the Reserve Bank of Australia, should act decisively to reduce inflation even if that is “jarring to the economy”. That’s ode for job losses (“What must be done to stop inflation juggernaut”, Comment, 27/6).
So, in order to get rid of one economic problem, we create and tolerate another. Economics really is the dismal science.
Rod Wise, Surrey Hills
We vote on a package
The idea that sensible policies like winding back negative gearing or removing franking credit refunds to people who pay no tax have been “rejected by the electorate” at an election is nonsense.
We do not vote on individual proposals but are presented with a complex package by parties and are forced to choose on an all-or-nothing basis.
Individual policies may have overwhelming public support, but can still be caught up in a rejection of the overall platform. It’s only when a policy such as same-sex marriage is subject to a plebiscite that we get a true assessment of the public view on any individual proposal.
Peter Barry, Marysville
AND ANOTHER THING
Politics
Once again we are reminded that bipartisanship is still alive, but sadly only for politicians’ salaries (“Rise reinforces Andrews as highest-paid premier”, The Age, 27/6).
Lindsay Donahoo, Wattle Glen
Good on you, Anthony Albanese. The end of cushy, highly paid jobs for mates, congratulations,
Ian Braybrook, Castlemaine
The headline “Staffing cuts lead to talk of Senate disruption” (The Age, 27/6) is a sad reminder that no matter who you vote for, you end up with a politician.
Tony Haydon, Springvale
Just like franking credits, once you receive a privilege – be it two, three or even four advisers – you never want to let it go.
Les Aisen, Elsternwick
There will be quite a few Australians who will be disappointed that they voted for the teals, it would’ve been better if they had voted for one of the major parties.
Diana Goetz, Mornington
The United States
It is gross hypocrisy that many of the US states, like Texas, now banning abortions still relentlessly execute people.
Reg Murray, Glen Iris
America, how can you be pro-life and pro-guns?
Ron Mather, Melbourne
When will the US Supreme Court ban the pill?
John Walsh, Watsonia
Furthermore
Regarding the oppression at the centre of The Handmaid’s Tale Margaret Atwood said: “Nothing makes me more nervous than people who say ‘it can’t happen here’. Anything can happen anywhere, given the right circumstances”.
Jan Hasnie, Doncaster
Finally
Congratulations to Megan Herbert on her brilliant cartoon (The Age, 27/6) on the two recent American Supreme Court decisions with their contempt for human life and legal convention. Shattering.
Annette Rubinstein, Carlton North
Gay Alcorn sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive her Note from the Editor.
Most Viewed in National
From our partners
Source: Read Full Article
