As a feminist of course I agree that, as Jenna Price puts it, childcare is "a bridge over which we can cut inequality and give women a way into the workforce" ("The crucial piece of infrastructure", May 7, p58) but surely it is a whole lot more.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
As many of us know, childcare and aged care are some of the very most challenging jobs of all. I suspect they require many more rapid decision-making, greater interpersonal sensitivity and human maturity than are ever demanded of CEOs in multinational corporations.
And yet a carer is paid a pittance, sometimes less than a person who stacks our supermarket shelves, and, as we've come to expect, these stupendously skilled carers are women!
When we use the word "infrastructure" to refer to childcare we think of the buildings and premises they use but as a feminist I think of childcare as mostly people, women.
The current call for a childcare infrastructure which is cheaper to consumers overlooks the central value of our urge to care for the vulnerable.
Whilst I think we need affordable childcare, I would give my very first priority to the provision of appropriately paid and qualified staff. Otherwise we might soon see exposures of the kinds of neglect we are now regretting in aged care.
Jill Sutton, Watson
More pepper than salt
Recently we were working outside in the yard of our home when yet again, we were rudely interrupted by the yelling from a young male threatening to break in through the roof tiles of the Housing ACT property next door.
He was swearing and carrying on because he was locked out. Four police cars arrived while he continued to curse at the top of his voice, lamenting that he was going to be arrested, again.
Shortly after this hour long show, we discovered that a stolen car with plates removed had been dumped on our verge by the housing tenants at the other end of our street. We know this because it had been captured on video by other wary neighbours. It sat there for a week impeding traffic before finally being removed.
Every complaint to Housing ACT about the antisocial behaviour we are regularly subjected to by its housing tenants has been shut down as fast as it has been raised.
There has never been a care by Housing ACT for the long suffering neighbours, nor any accountability on behalf of these tenants.
Housing ACT has never even demonstrated to us that it can fulfil the simple task of enforcing its own regulations under the ACT Residential Tenancies Act.
I for one would welcome any class action that would hold the ACT government accountable for the forever deteriorating environmental amenity we find ourselves in because of badly placed and recalcitrant housing tenants. It's a disgrace.
Alison Chapple, Macquarie
The price we pay
So the cost of residential gas is going to increase by $14 per year for the next five years .
Yahoo. This is a minute price to pay to have instant heat regardless of the frost outside or to see whether your stove top is on without the need for a doctorate to work your cooktop or oven out.
We have already cancelled our move to retire to Whitlam as it declares itself "gas free" .
Surely we can save the planet without making life unliveable?
Paul O'Connor, Hawker
Go Frances
It would seem Mike Pezzullo and Frances Adamson are both vying for the role of secretary of the Department of Defence, both having given major speeches recently.
I would like to see Ms Adamson appointed to the role.
Having served in Beijing, Taipei and Hong Kong, she has the right credentials in the current geopolitical climate.
And, above all, the appointee needs to understand China.
Ms Adamson would also be a good balance for the minister.
It is dangerous to have two people beating the same drum.
Herman van de Brug, Belconnen
What line?
Roger Dace regurgitates the disingenuous "floodgates" argument by asking, "where do we draw the line" on admitting refugees (Letters, May 1). The answer is, "we don't - we should always do as much as we possibly can, including consideration of our moral obligations".
This includes using the power given to the minister under the Act to apply discretion in individual cases.
Does Roger believe that a purely legal "one size fits all" rule should apply to all refugees, no matter what the individual circumstances? Does he believe that we should waste millions in keeping a single family isolated indefinitely on Christmas Island despite thousands of Australians calling for them to be allowed to return to Biloela?
As for opening the floodgates, does Roger really believe Home Affairs, despite the billions poured into it, is incapable of "stopping the boats", even if they should (miraculously) turn into a deluge?
I am more than happy to take as a compliment Roger's accusation that I am "parading my humanity". Isn't that precisely what Jesus did (Prime Minister please take note)?
Eric Hunter, Cook
Options for the rich
The federal Coalition hasn't dared highlight that some Australians who wish to return from India can still do so ("India travel ban raises serious issues", canberratimes.com.au, May 4).
The current controls put in place suggest those with the means to exit India to transit in another country for at least two weeks, and who can afford a longer temporary stay if they fall ill with COVID and require expensive medical treatment in the interim, could then queue up for commercial or private flights and entry to Australia.
Some may be driven to take the risks associated with such travel, rather than wait in India for some indeterminate and agonising time, particularly if they were unlikely to have been prioritised for the eight repatriation flights that DFAT has had to defer until further notice.
Wealthy or not, the options and outlook for citizens who wish to return appear very bleak and unlikely to improve greatly given how the Coalition continues to handle all this in such a clunky way.
Sue Dyer, Downer
A better way
Re "Ardern admits strained ties with China" (canberratimes.com.au, May 4).
That may be so but New Zealand is handling the China relationship much more diplomatically and professionally than has the Morrison government and some military-related Australians.
As far as I am aware China has not imposed any retaliatory trade bans on New Zealand.
But in the latest effort of Australian "megaphone diplomacy" the former head of Australia's special forces, Major-General Findlay was quoted as saying that conflict with China was a "high likelihood".
This sort of approach serves no useful purpose, except to possibly bring on a form of inevitable conflict and further damage to Australia's interests.
Rod Holesgrove, Crace
Vietnam reflections
I would like to offer a comment on Bruce Cameron's letter (Letters, May 4).
I was conscripted for service in Vietnam.
I was pleased to be able to achieve deferment until Australian policy changed.
Those years at university enabled me to spend almost the next 40 years seeking to advance Australian interests through actions short of military intervention.
Of course Australians who answered the call served with honour and of course there was among some, a shameful response when those Australian forces returned home.
But my foreign perspective is crystal clear.
The US intervention in Vietnam (with Australia tagging along) was the major US foreign policy blunder of the second half of the 20th century.
Iraq is the major blunder so far in the 21st century.
Vietnam has fought for territorial integrity for over 2000 years, much of it in struggles against Chinese hegemony.
French colonial intervention was relatively quickly brushed aside and the ultimately successful struggle to again reunify the country was begun.
Jeff Hart, Kingston
Ban unconstitutional
On the question of the legality and constitutionality of the India travel ban arbitrarily imposed by the Morrison government on Australian citizens stranded in COVID-19-ravaged India I would take the word of the eminent international human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson over the PM any day.
Mr Robertson says the ban undermines the rule of law and is unconstitutional.
He is amply qualified to make that interpretation of the ban.
We can't have that in our democracy. The law must be respected.
All right thinking Australians must show their outrage.
Rajend Naidu, Glenfield, NSW
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark canberratimes.com.au
- Download our app
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter
- Follow us on Instagram
Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attachment. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.
Keep your letter to 250 or fewer words. References to The Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).