ScoMo’s subs deal cut Australia adrift in an increasingly turbulent political sea

In the latest edition of Your Say, Crikey readers are bemused by the logistics and optics of the whole submarine affair, and concerned by the size and nature of the part Australia will play in the AUKUS pact. But global treaties and relationships have nothing on the reaction to ethicist Leslie Cannold’s take on the who and when of hospital treatment in the time of COVID...

On breaking and making submarine-supply contracts

Ute Mueller writes: The Coalition government under Morrison needed a boost before the next election after it got nearly everybody offside with its botched COVID vaccine procurement. To update our submarine program and tell the constituency what was good for the country seemed to be a winner. However, there are ways of doing things, and there are certainly other ways of deceiving others and making enemies. Our government chose the latter.

Instead of involving the country we had a binding substantial contract with in our change of mind and ruminations, we sent it a letter expressing our satisfaction about the deal and the progress of it18 months into the negotiations with another country about another deal, only to reveal the next day the successful outcome of those negotiations. That has nothing to do with diplomacy. It is outright deception and disrespect, if not absolute foolishness.

France, the country in question, has very close ties with the rest of the European Union. Everybody knows now that we are not to be trusted and will treat us with disdain. We are without submarines we can rely on for another 30 years and don’t know the price of the new deal or the cancellation of the old one. On top of that, we haven’t got the expertise to maintain the technology and are therefore beholden to the manufacturer. In short, this deal is curtailing our sovereignty badly.

There is talk about leasing existing, functioning submarines in order to fill the gap. If that is an option, why don’t we go for that for good? Germany is experimenting with hydrogen-powered submarines right now. That may be the deal for the future. There would be better options out in the world rather than to tie us to ailing Big Brother for a very long time, which would restrict our foreign policy options enormously.

On the AUKUS pact and what it means for Australia

Cheryl Marquez writes: Just a few thoughts on AUKUS:

• If we are the subordinate partner in this pact, is there a possibility Australia will become the dumping ground of nuclear waste
• With regard to China’s looming power crisis this coming winter, maybe this could provide an opportunity for Australia to mend its relationship and offer to resume coal trade negotiations; the alternative may be that China takes more aggressive action
• While I agree the United States has been the main aggressor into other countries in recent times, have we forgotten China’s brutal invasion of Tibet?

On who gets a hospital bed first

John Peel writes: Absolutely agree with Cannold. But we’re still being rather shy about admitting that most COVID cases in hospitals are not the unvaccinated but rather the obese. Is obesity an underlying health condition, or an avoidable condition that should put those people at the back of the queue? The thought of cancer and heart patients being shoved aside to make room for them does seem less than fair.

Darren Davie writes: Why are we talking about rationing hospital beds? We shouldn’t be pitting one Australian against another based on vaccination. I think the bigger question is why are there not enough ICU beds in preparation for an influx of patients? The excuse for the lockdowns is that we don’t have enough hospital beds to cater for more COVID cases. There’s been more than a year and a half to sort that out. Dan Andrews’ government in Victoria promised funding for 4000 extra ICU beds. When he was asked about them on Sky News recently, he denied they were promised. The beds have not been produced. Where did the money go?

The government had plenty of time to produce extra hospital beds and support. That way we would not have had to shut down our economy, destroy businesses and people’s lives, and plunge our state and country into massive debt. In return we would have received more tax to provide extra care and support to combat serious COVID cases.

There are probably many mental issues produced from these harsh lockdowns — maybe the worst in the world. The government has chosen to plunge us in to massive debt when there were other practical ways to handle things. 

Matt Gately writes: Leslie Cannold’s idea that the wilfully unvaccinated shouldn’t get treatment commensurate with the severity of their illness is cruel and utterly impractical. 

Aside from the dreadful precedent it would set — who’d be next to be withheld treatment? Smokers who had refused to hear about the health risk of their habit? Compulsive joggers? — and the unmistakable message that you’re not a citizen but a more or less valuable widget in the economy, how would the triage work?  

Who would say no to treatment? Medics or ED staff before patients are loaded into ambulances or at hospital doors? Would ambulances even bother to respond to emergencies of the unvaccinated? How would health staff know that the person dying before them had deliberately refused vaccination? Would the unvaxxed be forced to tattoo their pariah status on their skins?

What medico legal risks come with refusing or deferring necessary treatment? What would happen when doctors inevitably make the wrong call? Would doctors have to discard all their training and oaths to carry out this idea? 

Is there a cure for people’s stupidity, ignorance, credulity? Do they deserve compassion nonetheless? Is Cannold’s idea unspeakably nasty and ridiculous? I think so.

Has something in Crikey got you fired up? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.