
Peter Dutton has made history, but not in the way he hoped
Peter Dutton became Liberal leader in 2022. Source: SBS News Opposition leader Peter Dutton has lost his Brisbane seat of Dickson.
He has represented the Queensland seat of Dickson in the Australian House of Representatives since 2001.
Dutton has held several significant positions in successive Coalition governments, including stints as the minister for home affairs, health and defence. Opposition leader Peter Dutton was hoping to make history as the first Opposition leader to unseat a first-term government in 100 years. Instead, he has made history as the first Opposition leader to lose his seat at a federal election. has snatched the electorate by at least a 9 per cent margin — a remarkable result after two previous runs for Dutton's long-held seat. "Dickson had a one-term curse, it was only ever held for one term at a time and we have held it for 24 years," Dutton said in his concession speech. "I do want to say thank you to the people of Dickson who have placed faith in me over a long period of time."
It's the same electorate where his great-grandparents worked as dairy farmers in the 1860s. As Dutton's 24-year career as Dickson's federal member comes to an end, here's a rundown of his life and career so far.
Dutton joined the Queensland Police at the age of 18, where he worked as an officer for several years before becoming a detective. There, he investigated the high-profile murder of 17-month-old-baby, Deirdre Kennedy. The case became a catalyst to change Queensland's , with Dutton travelling around Queensland to petition for the cause. He later studied at the Australian Federal Police College and held positions in the National Crime Authority and Drug and Sex Offenders' squads.
Paul Williams is a political commentator and professor at Griffith University. He credits Dutton's background in policing as playing a critical role in shaping his views on issues including security and immigration. "If you ask people to list his [Dutton's] qualities, they would say: 'We like his position on immigration. We like his position on law and order.'" Dutton has he likely suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and said his time in law enforcement has left him with "scars". Before his time in Canberra, Dutton also worked with his father in the building business, which he says grew to employ 40 Australians.
In 2001, Dutton defeated Labor frontbencher Cheryl Kernot for the seat of Dickson and caught the attention of then Liberal prime minister John Howard. In a letter to Dickson voters during the 2019 election, Howard wrote: "Some politicians fly to Canberra and forget where they come from — Peter is not one of them. "In my experience, he is a genuine, hardworking local member."
Dutton quickly climbed the political ladder; in less than four years he had secured his first ministerial position, heading up the Department of Workforce Participation. By the time the Coalition returned to power under Tony Abbott in 2013, Dutton had already held an array of portfolios including finance, health and ageing. But it was during Dutton's tenure as the minister for immigration and border protection that he really started to make headlines. In 2016, Dutton announced the closure of several offshore detention facilities, including the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre in Papua New Guinea. It was a move that sparked protests. Dutton later admitted, "I'm sure mistakes were made and decisions were rushed." But he also defended the decision stating: "When I speak to the Border Force staff and the sailors at sea, they were pulling a 1,000 people a week off boats, they were pulling bodies out of the water of children that'd been eaten by sharks and the rest."
Dutton has been a staunch critic of China, calling it Australia's biggest security threat in the final . He has endorsed international partnerships such as the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal, which his office said, "will play a vital role in sustaining peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region". In a speech to the Lowly Institute last month, Dutton acknowledged that, while Labor also supported the AUKUS deal, "their heart isn't in the game when it comes to defence". He also cited his experience as home affairs and defence minister as providing him the "respect" to deal with US President Donald Trump.
Senior Labor figures have criticised Dutton from multiple angles. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has Dutton of reading "from the DOGE [ US Department of Government Efficiency ] playbook", while Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told the ABC he believes the Opposition leader has "darkened his own image". In 2008, Dutton was the only Liberal frontbencher not to appear during the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. He has since apologised stating he "failed to grasp" the "symbolic significance" of the moment at the time.
The Coalition leader also opposed the 2023 Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum. Days after the referendum failed, Dutton his prior commitment to recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution and said people are "probably over the referendum process for some time". He also vowed to cut public 41,000 public servants from Canberra, a move which has also been criticised as Trumpian. But Williams from Griffith University believes the comment was simply "unfortunate" timing. "I don't think he took his inspiration from Trump and [Elon] Musk ... I think it was a Dutton thought bubble".
Dutton has been married twice and has three children. There are not many public details about his first wife, other than that he married at the age of 22 and the relationship only lasted a few months.
He also has a daughter, who was born from another short-lived relationship. In an interview with ABC's Kitchen Cabinet, he called her "the best mistake I ever made". Dutton also has two adult sons with his second wife, Kirilly Dutton. In a joint appearance on television earlier this year, she described her husband as a "great mate, a good son and an excellent dad". Visit the to access articles, podcasts and videos from SBS News, NITV and our teams covering more than 60 languages.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Reynolds' fresh target in Higgins lawsuit
Linda Reynolds has turned her attention to former Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus in her bid to sue the Commonwealth over its compensation payment to Brittany Higgins, as the nation's anti-corruption agency revealed there was 'no corruption issue' in the payment. The retiring former Liberal minister in May launched action in the Federal Court against the Commonwealth, with the crux of the claim over the $2.4m compensation payment to Brittany Higgins in 2022. Senator Reynolds argued the payment was 'publicly affirming' of Ms Higgins allegations against her that she didn't support her former staffer when she alleged she was raped by Bruce Lehrmann. Brittany Higgins was paid a $2.4m compensation payment. NewsWire / Jeremy Piper Credit: News Corp Australia The Federal Court has found Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. A criminal trial was aborted due juror misconduct and a charge against him was dropped. Mr Lehrmann has always denied the allegation and is appealing the Federal Court's finding. An amended version of Ms Reynolds statement of claim was filed on Wednesday, just a day before the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) said there was 'no corruption issue' in the $2.4m payment. The NACC on Thursday announced there was 'no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official'. Senator Reynolds' amended statement of claim was made public late on Thursday afternoon. Linda Reynolds has amended her statement of claim. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Among the changes is a reference to a speech by Mr Dreyfus the then Attorney-General made to parliament on March 15, 2021. Mr Dreyfus is not a party to the claim. Mr Dreyfus recounted to the House of Representatives a speech by Ms Higgins just outside Parliament House, where she told a large crowd she was raped inside the building by a colleague, and how her story was 'a painful reminder to women that it can happen in Parliament House and can truly happen anywhere'. 'If a woman cannot feel safe from rape in Parliament House, a veritable fortress ringed with security cameras, with entrances protected by armed guards and with Federal Police officers on duty inside, where can women feel safe?' Mr Dreyfus told the House of Representatives, according to a transcript excerpt in the claim. 'How strong is the rule of law if it isn't able to protect a young woman working in the ministerial wing of Parliament House?' The amended statement of claim argued Senator Reynolds had suffered loss and damage as a result of Mr Dreyfus' conduct, including denying her the opportunity to rebut Ms Higgins' allegation 'in the appropriate forum'. Former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia It also argues Mr Dreyfus 'enabled and encouraged the falsity of Ms Higgins' claim to be maintained by Ms Higgins'. HWL Ebsworth, which acted on the Commonwealth's behalf, is also being sued by Senator Reynolds for negligence. Lawyers on behalf of Senator Reynolds argued HWLE breached its fiduciary duty to her by excluding her from the mediation conference where the $2.4m settlement was reached, and failing to conduct independent investigations to establish if there was 'at least a meaningful prospect of liability' by Ms Higgins. However, similar alleged breaches initially put forth against the Commonwealth were withdrawn in the amended document, with it now largely focusing on allegations of Mr Dreyfus' misfeasance of public office and alleged breaches of HWLE. Mr Dreyfus has been contacted for comment. He earlier welcomed NACC's statement. 'The NACC has conclusively found there was no improper interference by any Commonwealth official at any stage,' Mr Dreyfus said. 'I regret the baseless allegation of corruption has been so widely publicised ahead of this finding and hope future matters can be resolved in a more timely manner. 'I also regret any further distress caused to Ms Higgins as a result of this matter.'


The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
How Australia's 'no-worries' approach has led our nation's defence astray
With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable.

Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump's AUKUS review gives us a chance to rethink our alliances
Stephen Bartholomeusz' excellent article led me to speculate on our strategic defence strategy (' Has Trump created a path for the Euro to displace the $US?' June 12). As our prime minister prepares to meet US President Donald Trump, he will be well aware of the growing distaste among most Australians for our long-standing alliance with America. Now, Washington is reconsidering AUKUS (' AUKUS in doubt as US starts review ', June 11). It is natural for a state to put its own interests first, but why doesn't Australia do the same? You don't need to be Einstein to work out the AUKUS subs will never materialise. What if Australia got ahead of the game for once and explored a revised strategic alliance with Britain and France, based initially on French nuclear subs? We are at an historic juncture where most of the Western world is looking for a new, more stable order, so let's begin with a plan to not only strengthen our defence capability, but to strengthen our overall relations with Europe. This will also remove the possible perennial sore point that AUKUS threatens to become. Win-win? James Archibald, Enmore Australia's commitment to AUKUS and its multi-billion dollar submarine project is misguided and outdated. It's as if our leaders have ignored everything the war in Ukraine has taught the world about modern warfare. We are investing billions in submarines that will take decades to deliver – vessels designed for a form of warfare that is rapidly becoming obsolete. Meanwhile, we've seen how inexpensive drones and smart technology can disable or destroy equipment worth 100 times more. The battlefield has changed, and we are failing to keep up. On top of that, we're now investing in long-range missile systems. One has to ask: who are these intended for? You don't buy long-range missiles unless you plan to use them – and that points to a dangerous shift in our military posture from defence to offence. What Australia really needs is a smart, modern, defensive capability – one that protects our people and land, not one that provokes arms races or ties us to foreign conflicts. It's time to stop buying Cold War-era hardware. It's time to modernise our defence, focus on protecting our own shores, and make foreign policy decisions based on Australia's best interests, not Washington's. Doug Cliff, Point Clare In 2020, Donald Trump handed Scott Morrison one of America's highest military awards, the Legion of Merit. By 2021, the AUKUS deal between these two self-serving cronies had signed away billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers' money for a deal that gives us nothing but astronomical national debt and the award for being the world's biggest suckers. Anthony Albanese should have taken the opportunity to speak with a comparatively rational leader when Joe Biden was president and make cancelling AUKUS a priority before Trump's return. Instead, desperate to play with the big boys in the playground, he chose to deepen our commitment. We haven't just agreed to being fleeced by, and enslaved to, a dangerous and dishonest America, we have willingly funded it even though it's obvious the submarines will never appear. We expected to be betrayed by a lowlife like Trump, but we have mainly been betrayed by our own politicians, whose cringing weaknesses and pathetic egos have treacherously put our country last. Sally Morris, Leichhardt Cut the rope. Push America off into the Atlantic. Cancel AUKUS. Get back our deposit. Buy our subs from Japan. Strengthen our ties with Japan, China, Indonesia, Europe and India. Let Trump pump his fists in front of his own mirror. Laurie Dicker, Forest Glen If Trump cancels AUKUS, the US will be left with only one ally, Israel. Thinking of it, there's also Russia and North Korea. Ron Brown, Wallsend Democrats blew it With the escalating unrest in America, I am left with increasing anger at the incompetent Democrats, who must now take significant responsibility for the chaos by failing to 'read the room' in the election year (' Los Angeles is at war with Trump's vision of America ', June 12). I was in America for the three months before the election, and all the Democrats did in the media was bang on about a woman's right to an abortion. Fine indeed, but they completely ignored the concerns of the ordinary American people about issues that affected them: jobs, border control, inflation, the economy generally. So as a result of that incompetence, we are left watching America unravel. It is riveting reading each day and I think your US correspondent, Michael Koziol, has the best job in the world – if he can stay safe. Duncan Holmes, Freshwater Q+A's demise began in 2019 It's no surprise that the ABC's Q+A is being canned (' Q+A axed, jobs cut ', June 12). The loss of host Tony Jones in 2019 was arguably the beginning of the end. No subsequent host was a match for his professionalism, innate humour and unbiased adjudication of what were much more interesting, robust and challenging discussions or debates. The later hosts invariably made it about themselves, their opinions, gripes, preferred preselected predictable questions, modifying and asking their own questions, and the twee pursuit of gotcha moments. This self-interested myopia is exactly what Australians have clearly just rejected in their politicians, so no wonder the ratings went south under the keen judgment of discerning ABC audiences. Robyn Dalziell, Kellyville It really is enough to make an old political junkie cry (' Axed show no longer got us talking ', June 12). Panel shows where opposing parties eyeball each other and ideas are passionately contested should be the bread and butter of the ABC, but it seems our increasingly tame public broadcaster has lost its taste for the confrontation and controversy these formats deliver. The Drum disappeared without a whimper or any sign of a replacement. Now Q+A is 'dead, buried and cremated' … words I reckon Tony Abbott might be repeating as they pop the champagne corks over at the IPA. Phil Bradshaw, Naremburn Now that Q+A is gone, I suggest the ABC reinstate The Drum. It was a stimulating and thought- provoking show leading in to the 7pm news and offered a well-balanced set of views from knowledgeable panellists, as well as politicians, on contentious questions. The current time slot is filled with a dreadful show that makes even Antiques Roadshow interesting. Currently Would I Lie to You? is the best option at 6.30pm on the ABC, an ironic choice indeed. Our national broadcaster should and could do better than this. Annie Scrivener, St Ives Let's face it, Q+A is no real loss. Nor was the all-too-PC The Drum. The axing of Lateline was a great mistake, but I guess we can't hope for a return. Let's hope now that the ABC will moderate its chasing of, presumably, younger audiences with the frippery of lightweight reality programs and comedians laughing at their own, usually weak, jokes. So let's have some decent current affairs and news analysis and not of the attack dog sort, or the relentless chasing of 'gotcha' moments to fill tomorrow's headlines, or the repeat of what has been in earlier news broadcasts. Until then, this once rusted-on ABC TV viewer will seek decent analysis somewhere else. Greg Baker, Fitzroy Falls What a shame about Q+A' s axing after I started watching it again this year. Has it really been six years since Tony Jones left the show? I stopped watching when it moved to Thursdays. It had been must-see TV after Media Watch on Mondays. With rotating hosts and internal dramas, Q+A lost its continuity and purpose. There was no need to change the formula and fix what wasn't broken. Robert Yen, Lidcombe Tough stance welcome For too long, Australia has taken its foreign affairs cues from the US, so it was gratifying to see Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong show some independence in sanctioning the right-wing Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich (' Australia imposes Magnitsky-style sanctions on two hardline Israeli ministers ', June 11). Our condemnation of them does not serve as a balm to Hamas, whose crimes against Israel are acknowledged by Australia. The people of Palestine must have a homeland. Only then will there be peace in the Middle East. Genevieve Milton, Dulwich Hill Bradfield blame game The Liberals' Bradfield mansion has burnt to the ground, and rather than accept that it was the result of years of neglect and misreading of the electorate, they are still running around looking for an arsonist (' Why the Liberals should just accept defeat in Bradfield ', June 12). Traducing the excellent and transparent work of the AEC, casting aspersions on the intellect of the electorate, anything other than recognising the result is due to their own political blindness and ineptitude. Let's hope the Trumpian refusal to accept the loss ends soon and some political insight results in the rebuilding of a relevant opposition. Mind you, pigs might also fly. Elisabeth Goodsall, Wahroonga Liberal makeover Finally, some common sense from Sussan Ley as she and her small band of survivors pick through the still smouldering ruins of their once powerful broad church, searching for any usable foundations on which to rebuild (' Ley to order radical Liberal review ', June 12). But perhaps even the big, old cornerstones of small government and lower taxes are no longer fit for purpose. To help in her deliberations she needs only to look to the experiment tearing America apart (' Trump: Dumb, dishonest and dangerous say Australians ', June 12). Voters recognise there is a growing need for government services – health, NDIS, welfare, unemployment, defence etc – not to mention lowering the confrontational brand that the Liberals seem wedded to. Their new manifesto could then also include actually doing our bit to save the planet and being generous towards less fortunate nations and individuals escaping persecution. If Labor ever dropped the ball, voters might even consider a party believing in the above values as a viable alternative. Peter Thomson, Brunswick (Vic) Sussan Ley doesn't need to arrange a major review of the Liberal Party and the reasons for its failures. The Liberals just need to stop denying climate change/global warming, accept and embrace the march towards renewable energy and totally forget nuclear power. If the Nationals don't like it, then it will be time for Ley and the Liberals to say goodbye to them. Ken Butler, Mount Colah Home truth It is a no-brainer that the cost of building a new residence will soar if there is a shortage of materials and skilled labour (' Home building costs soar ', June 12). However, if one tours the more affluent suburbs, as I often do on my bicycle, the number of major renovations being carried out, usually on large houses for apparently well-off residents, is extraordinary. These renovations are consuming materials and labour, and one wonders if they should take precedence over desperately needed new housing. Perhaps councils could limit the number of approved renovations at any time in the interests of freeing up labour and materials, and thus reduce pressure on costs of new residences. Geoff Harding, Chatswood Reality bites We all know that climate change-worsened heatwaves, bushfires and floods are detrimental to our collective health. But climate change is also driving up incidences of horrible vector-borne diseases like dengue fever (' Mosquito disease cases on the rise', June 12). Mosquitos are already the most deadly creature on the planet, killing more than a million people a year. Our warmer climate is creating the conditions for these pests to spread more readily than ever – just another sting to add to the long list of reasons why climate action matters. Amy Hiller, Kew (Vic) Tax gas giants Ken Henry once said that he did not understand why young people weren't out on the streets rioting about the unfairness of the tax system. I wonder when we will charge sensible levies on the gas exporters who sell the nation's non-renewable gas resources and pay little to nothing for it, and use tax shelters to minimise corporate tax. Australian gas exporters pay an average of 14 per cent tax while similar companies in Scandinavia pay 73 per cent, and they have a massive wealth fund to pay for education and health, plus other important areas of good for the community. The new government now has the political strength to fix this outrage. Will they do it? I suppose not. Maybe I am just dreaming. Max Press, North Sydney Sail on, sailor The passing of the Beach Boys legend Brian Wilson brings memories flooding back from my early days of longboard surfing in Australia (' Brian Wilson dies at 82 ', June 12). Cars with boards on top and radios blasting out Wilson's songs like Surfin' Safari, Surfer Girl, Girls on the Beach along the beachfront. Later, as the Beatles grew in strength, even Paul McCartney praised Wilson for iconic titles like Good Vibrations, God Only Knows and Wouldn't it Be Nice, as the Beach Boys developed and matured. In Australia, those times will be remembered as the start of the great Australian surfing period, with heroes like Midget Farrelly and Manly's Glenn Ritchie and Robbie Lane, while in the car park Wilson's music dominated the airwaves. Many of us will be feeling sadness and nostalgia as we farewell Brian Wilson's musical genius. William Tuck, Mosman Cheeky shortcut Stories about the AMP building reminded me of when I was about 17 or 18 working as a cleaner there. Part of my job involved sweeping the roof. Instead of picking up the litter I would simply sweep it over the edge. As it was about 5.30am, I assumed it wouldn't land on anyone. At least I hope it didn't. Patrick McMahon, Paddington