Amanda Vanstone dismisses the significance of the almost perpetual feature of Prime Minister Morrison's face; the smirk ("You know what? Bring the smirk", May 12, p36). I would not dismiss that facial expression so readily.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
To me, Scott Morrison's smirk conveys a self-satisfied complacency; an air of infallibility. A sense that "a higher power will see me through", just as it did in the 2019 election "miracle".
Unfortunately for Mr Morrison, the polls are consistently demonstrating that a convincing majority of voters have seen the ugly reality behind the smirk.
Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin
Educate or perish
I am much encouraged by Labor's multi-faceted plans to support teachers and teachers-in-training. It is the best news in the whole election campaign so far. And the winners will be our children.
R McCallum, Higgins
Rubenstein tops on climate
I agree with Sue Dyer (Letters, May 12) that discussion of the environment and how we address our current, critical, climate situation is welcome during the election campaign.
Kim Rubenstein's Climate Compact has been assessed by an independent agency, Vote Earth Now, as the best of all ACT Senate candidates, with the ACT Greens' second and David Pocock's third.
If it's the environment that is deciding your Senate vote in this election, this analysis by a not-for-profit, pro-climate action organisation makes voting for Kim Rubenstein the only choice.
Elizabeth Cusack, Turner
A wage rise when?
In tough times, we can't afford a wage rise because it will send businesses to the wall. In good times, it will fuel inflation. When the economy is growing, it will kill the fragile shoots of recovery. When it's struggling we all have to tighten our belts, of course starting with wage earners.
When is it ever the right time for wage earners to catch up or share in the spoils of growth?
Tony Judge, Woolgoolga, NSW
Doublespeak from the LNP
The LNP are telling us that they are the superior economic managers. They also tell us that while wage rises for the lowest income earners are totally unaffordable, tax cuts for the wealthiest Australians and multinational companies are essential. Am I missing something with this picture?
Doug Steley, Heyfield, Tasmania
Curious decision on tanks
The government announced in January that it was spending $3.5 billion on 127 Abrams tanks for the ADF. This week we've had reports of a $30,000 anti-tank missile destroying a Russian tank valued at $7 million. For what purpose does Australia require tanks? This sort of money would be better spent on arming our proposed nuclear powered submarines with nuclear weapons. Just five such armed submarines would be required, allowing three to be at sea at any one time.
Jeff Day, Greenway
There's only one China
Rajend Naidu (Letters, May 12) perpetuates the myth Taiwan is an independent country which China intends to invade. China (including Taiwan) was a founding member of the UN in 1945.
In 1949 the Chinese Communist Party decisively won the civil war against the previous government (the Republic of China). Remnants of ROC forces retreated to Taiwan where they were protected by US forces.
The UN immorally retained an ROC nominee as China's representative. This permitted voting in the Security Council to be skewed. This enabled UN involvement in the Korean civil war.
On October 25, 1971 the UN recognised the People's Republic of China as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations".
The US should end its 73-year effective invasion of China, accept Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan, and facilitate peaceful reunification.
