On Dick Smith

Harry Wallace writes: Re. “Dick Smith shortlisted for Arsehat of the Year over his ABC dummy spit” (Wednesday)

Most disappointing that Emily Watkins attacks the man, Dick Smith, not his argument, thus persisting Crikey’s ignoring of growing population issues. Yes, Dick has a great knack for publicity, some for fun but others most serious. Yesterday the Current Account figures were released: $9.6 billion more spent in the June Quarter than was earned. Net international indebtedness over $1 trillion, inevitably increasing even without more population as we depend for most income from non-renewables and some of those will be exhausted in my grandchildren’s lifetime – with no alternates in sight.

As a farmer I know the limitations on renewables – and we already eat 40% of red meat produced. More people equals less exports. More people equals more imports: cars, clothing, food, etc. I too, have tried to get the ABC to correct the frequent statements that Australia is “rich”. Dick is rich because his income is much greater than his expenses. In contrast Australia has almost always spent more than earned, borrowing from smart countries to pay our way.

High population growth is the lazy politician’s way of positive GDP and some businesses, like banks, love it. And it defers the crunch of national long term strategy planning!

On Peter Dutton and the High Court

John Newton writes: Re. “Peter Dutton cancels visa a third time, undermines the High Court in under an hour“(Wednesday)

“I am not aware of any minister or government in Australia’s history moving so swiftly to react to an adverse decision of the High Court”. I am not aware of any minister less deserving of the rank and responsibility. How did we get to this?

On Hanson and the Burqua

Brian Watt writes: Re. “Was Pauline Hanson actually allowed to wear that burqa in Parliament?” (Wednesday) 

You mention Gough Whitlam calling Paul Hasluck a “truculent runt”. This reference was actually made by Whitlam referring to the Attorney General, Garfield Barwick, in debate on changes to the Crimes Act in 1960. I’m not sure the description would be apt for Hasluck.

I defer to Jenny Hocking, who is the definitive expert on Whitlam. See page 212 of Volume 1 of her Biography of Whitlam “Gough Whitlam A Moment in History”. As you probably know she is the lead in the current case before the federal court for the release of the Kerr papers.