Beef order appears to come with side of appeasement

Sydney Morning Herald

a day ago

It will take a lot to convince me that relaxing long-standing, science-based biosecurity protections on US beef is anything other than political appeasement toward Donald Trump (' Albanese accused of appeasing Donald Trump with move to allow US beef in ', July 24). How can we now be confident we will stand firm to protect our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme against the same bullying interference? After that, what next? Meanwhile, we continue to pay billions in the deluded hope nuclear submarines and some filtered intel will defend us in 20 years' time. This behaviour in a romantic relationship (rather than a political one) would probably be deemed 'coercive control' and wise heads would be encouraging us to distance ourselves from it. We are probably better off spending our time, money and energy with more respectful, less self-serving partners. Mark Sapsford, North Turramurra
Let us hope it's just a coincidence that Australia's removal of the US beef ban has occurred just days before President Trump's latest tariff deadline. It would be disappointing if the government was appeasing the Trump administration in any way that threatened Australia's biosecurity. No more coincidences before August 1, please, Mr Prime Minister. Paul McGee, Springwood
As tempting as it may seem, giving in to a spoilt toddler who consistently wants their own way may seem like a good idea at the time, but let me tell you, it's simply not. It'll only reinforce negative behaviours and impede healthy development. The toddler will become increasingly demanding and objectionable. Setting clear boundaries for the toddler is essential. You need to show that there are consequences for their demands and tantrums. The toddler needs to learn to manage their emotions to truly appreciate what they have already. Albo, you need to be strong and not be a pushover for that out-of-control child. Kathleen Molloy, Thornleigh
Maybe I'm economically naive, but why does Australia need to both sell beef to the US and buy their beef? Surely this just adds to the costs for both countries and to our carbon footprint. And, for most of us, one cow tastes much the same as another, even if they are raised in different countries. It seems to me that trade in all goods should simply be selling our excess, and buying things we don't produce enough of ourselves. Judy Christian, The Ponds
I would rather heed the advice of the Farmers Association biosecurity committee chair as to what is safe for us. At least he knows which end of the beast to feed, rather than the stuff from the other end possibly being fed to us at ministerial level. David Sayers, Gwandalan
Metal misdeeds
It was interesting to read in Stephen Bartholomeusz's analysis that US domestic producers are using the price rises on imported products resulting from Donald Trump's tariffs to opportunistically raise the prices of their locally produced goods (' Trump sparks a $6.4 billion wipeout for a US icon ', July 24). The example given was of US steel and aluminium producers increasing their prices by 16 per cent to match the imported metals, dealing a huge blow to US manufacturer General Motors and adding to America's rising inflation. Great economic management, Trump. Mark Berg, Caringbah South
Trump's panic over the Epstein files could not be more obvious (' Trumps accuses Obama of 'treason' ', July 24). He is jumping from conspiracy to conspiracy in a vain attempt to distract from these files. However, accusing Obama of treason is a stretch even for him. Trump in panic mode is not a pretty sight. He is unable to maintain focus and his speech becomes garbled. He accused Obama of being 'sedatious' (seditious). His latest attempt to distract from the Epstein files may bring cheers from the usual toadies, such as Fox News, but will have the opposite effect on those seeking transparency and truth. If Obama had even a minor misdemeanour on his record, Trump would have pounced on it long ago. Dare we hope that Tump may finally get his comeuppance? Graham Lum, North Rocks
I, too, have had letters printed in the Herald that were critical of Trump and was a tad nervous about how far the US Homeland Security tentacles reached when we arrived at US customs in May (' Trump is becoming the Basil Fawlty of American tourism ', July 24). Having lived in Pennsylvania, and having made multiple visits over the decades, we stayed with friends and family, all booked and paid for before Trump was re-elected. It's a great pity that this beautiful country is being trashed by its leader. Despite not encountering problems, we will not be visiting again in the foreseeable future. Sally Spurr, Lane Cove
Sub-normal behaviour
The second AUKUS payment takes Australia's contribution to $1.6 billion (' Australia quietly pays US another $800 million for AUKUS despite review ', July 24). The problem with this is that there is no guarantee AUKUS will continue. Given the state of the federal debt, I believe both sides of politics should seriously consider pulling out of the venture and putting the money into more productive endeavours such as housing and health. These submarines will not be ready until at least 2040, and given the past issues with building these things, that date is probably very optimistic. Given the advances with warfare technology, my view is that they will almost obsolete by 2040. Just look at the way cheap drone technology is reaping havoc in Ukraine and the Middle East, costing, in comparison, practically nothing. Just image how easy it will be to detect submarines and blow them out of the water with the rapid pace of technology. The reality is the next big conflict will be all over before a submarine can get into position to do any good. Norman Arnott, Forestville
The article in the Herald says it all. Just like a dog that always gets a kick, we are always there for the US, our tails wagging. What a nice present Scottie from marketing left for the current government. Joe Weller, Mittagong
Rabbi off the mark
Rabbi Marcus Solomon expressed shock in his article, and I am shocked at his response (' When I visited Sydney, I was shocked by the antisemitism I encountered ', July 24). He was happy to receive sympathy for antisemitism in Ireland from the Irish couple, but not happy to receive political criticism of Israel from the man he asked directions from. Apparently, he is unable to distinguish the latter from antisemitism. He seems to be calling Australian critics of Israel 'idiots'. Here was an opportunity for an Australian Jew to express horror at the carnage being inflicted on Gazans by the Israeli government, but he didn't follow it up. To simply describe it as a 'tragedy that has befallen the Palestinian people' doesn't go nearly far enough. I am sorry he was shocked by the father calling out 'Free Palestine', but he needs to reflect on how other Australians view morality. Bob Hinchcliffe, Wahroonga
Richard Abram writes that Jewish Australians don't deserve persecution for the actions of a foreign state, namely Israel (Letters, July 24). That's certainly right, but they do deserve criticism if they support the actions of that foreign state, which is engaged in the mass slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. Gay O'Connor, Manly
One size definitely does not fit all in the voting-age argument (Letters, July 24). During my long teaching career I have taught many outstanding 16-year-olds who are mature, responsible and thoughtful, with an understanding of political issues and problems. I have also taught many who are virtually the opposite, with either zero interest in politics or else an impressionable, superficial or misinformed one. Our commendable mandatory voting system would give these young, easily influenced people political power, which could be easily abused or misdirected. Listen to their concerns and perspectives by all means, but the vote needs a few more years of life experience behind it. Robert Hickey, Green Point
If the voting age is lowered to 16, the curriculum should include a mandatory civics unit in year 10. While some teenagers are passionate about issues such as the environment, all would benefit from understanding how our political system works. A school trip to Canberra at a younger age is merely sightseeing. Learning about the roles of the different levels of government and the election process (special shout out to Taswegians) closer to the action would be more likely to attract their attention and help inform their decisions. Judith Campbell, Drummoyne
While we're discussing changes to the voting age, can we consider removing compulsory votes for aged care residents? My 95-year-old mother is bright and engaged for her age; however, she informs me that it's difficult to engage in intellectual conversations as most residents in her non-dementia section have some degree of dementia, or are simply not following the political debate. This leaves them vulnerable to undue influence. It would also make life easier for aged care residents and carers. Anne Matheson, Gordon
Bad gas … deal
Chevron's exit from Barrow Island has left WA taxpayers with a $500 million clean-up bill – all because of a deal most people have never heard of (' Taxpayers face $500 million bill to clean up Chevron's WA oil field ', July 23). It turns out that once production stops, the company actually gets its gas royalties refunded. For years we were told gas would be a win for the economy. But now we're not just stuck with the environmental mess – we're literally paying the companies back after they've made their money. And this isn't some one-off blunder. It shows just how much influence the gas industry has had over governments for decades. These kinds of deals don't get made out in the open – and they certainly don't get made with public support. But they happen anyway because the industry has always been able to get what it wants. Barrow Island makes it clear: we've never really known what we're getting out of these gas projects. What we do know is what we're left with – and it's not looking like a great deal. Karen Lamb, Geelong (Vic)
Finish the job
Completing the partially built station in Woollahra is in line with my view that the government should first utilise sites it already owns before imposing rezoning on residential and other land whose residents or owners do not want it – even with the prospect of an uplift in the value of their asset (' NSW Libs wicked problem: Housing ', July 24). In my own municipality of Ku-ring-gai, which is under pressure to change low-rise dwellings into high-rise, there are several cuttings on the rail line big enough to be developed. This would help to reach the housing target and avoid aggravating residents. For this to happen, the government needs to create a platform for such development to occur. Similar opportunities can be found all over Sydney. Peter Thornton, Killara
Alexandra Smith's article overlooks one of the biggest contributors to the housing crisis – population growth. Surely the time has come when we can discuss population without being called xenophobic, racist or selfish. Given Australia's low fertility rate of 1.5, and the 50,000 or so people who leave every year, there is still good scope for refugees, essential workers and family reunions in a migrant intake of about 100,000. Returning to our pre-COVID growth rate of 1.6 per cent would mean we shall have 100 million people in 90 years' time. Our disastrous environmental record over the past 130 years, with an average population of some 10 million, is surely another reason to have a proper talk about population. It's not only the housing crisis but also many aspects of our environmental and social future that are at stake. Ignoring the effect of exponential population growth on future generations really is selfish. John Burke, Wahroonga
A new investment
When looking at government handouts and the effect on productivity, let's not forget the handout of negative gearing (Letters, July 24). It encourages investment in a totally non-productive area and denies permanent homes to millions. Let's get the money invested in real estate, propped up by this insidious form of welfare, back into the economy where it can be effective, and the government money saved back into social housing, so people can live in our major cities and start economically producing. Elisabeth Goodsall, Wahroonga
Decent proposal
Ross Gittins correctly identifies the elephant in the room ('HECS cuts the least PM should do', July 23). Gittins correctly identifies one of the main hurdles in overcoming the 'fair go' that most Australians aspire to – 'by making a percentage cut, rather than a flat dollar amount'. In the current proposal for a cut in HECS, 20 per cent of $100,000 is much more than 20 per cent of $5000. It would be fairer if the government instead took 20 per cent of the median debt and subtracted that amount from all debts. Some people would even get a refund. With tax reform on the table, all changes similar to this should be scrutinised for who benefits the most. Philip Jirman, Wallabi Point
Once upon a time, many Australians were able to attend university free, in some cases even receiving an allowance for books or childcare (Letters, July 24). I was one of them; so were many of my 'mature age student' friends who were already parents. We studied nursing, teaching and social work, and worked and paid taxes for the next 30 years or more. Thanks, Gough. Margaret Wilkie, Peregian Beach (Qld)