Former prime minister John Howard (Image: AAP/Dean Lewins/Private Media)

Your Say lets readers tell Crikey what they think about the stories we’ve published. Today you take the former prime minister to task, but give the Greens a pat on the back.

On John Howard being centre of attention

Paula Miller writes: I left Australia to work in England in 2002 for many reasons, but also because I couldn’t live any longer in a country with John Howard as PM. Not only did he oversee the neoliberal nonsense from which we are still suffering today, but his cultural and social views were deplorable.

The rhetorical technique described in Tim Moore’s article is a well-known debating device: the “concede and contend” strategy that has won many high-quality debates. When in opposition, Howard was one of, if not the best, debater in the House — something often forgotten when the focus is on his physique and voice. I disliked the man and his policies intensely but acknowledged that his oratorical skills had been well crafted to reveal a sharp intellect. Over time he also learnt how to lead his fractious party while encouraging the basest views within the electorate. To write an unbalanced account of his tenure and policies is what I would expect of such a man — whose views were far from balanced, and who, while not in the same league as Scott Morrison, could cloak falsities in a pseudo-reasoning dialectic. 

Vicki James writes: What is the centre depends on what is being measured. The Liberals/conservatives who call Howard a centrist measure his ideology from their very narrow perspectives — perspectives that have significantly narrowed over the past few decades as social conservatives and neoliberal economists have captured the Liberal Party.

Ian Hill writes: I once thought that John Howard was our worst prime minister, setting us on the path of US-style conservative neo-liberalism. But then along came Tony Abbott, the most negative and destructive prime minister, intent on reversing anything initiated by the Gillard/Rudd governments to the detriment of our environment and our country. Who should then appear but Scott Morrison, who has proved to be the most small-minded, partisan and secretive of them all. When he and his government were rejected at the last election I felt not joy so much as a great sense of relief.

On the Greens and a Voice

Susan Hartley writes: The ALP will never miss an opportunity to bag the Greens so just accept that and move on. As an ex-ALP member (once on state executive) and having worked for a federal Labor minister in the Hawke period, I have seen the visceral hatred firsthand. Many Greens are ex-members of the ALP who fled there when the ALP was drinking the poison of neoliberal economic policies — taking it further than even the Liberals could at that time.

I agree with the Greens’ position. Having lived and worked in Aboriginal rural and remote communities and sat down in their homes, I know this is not something they are talking about when their basic needs are lacking: safety; secure housing; healthy food; meaningful work; a vision for their children’s future. Women and children are living in an environment of latent violence that can erupt at any time. How can their essential needs be met with this virtue signalling? My concern is that a well-organised, vociferous group has pushed this very strategically and effectively, usually putting the most easily defined traditional Aboriginal people up front for the photo-ops. It’s not a grassroots demand. I’m with Jacinta Price and Lidia Thorpe. Deliver first these basic needs to remote communities and the marginalised urban Aboriginal people and then let’s do the symbolism.

Mark Clyburn writes: As a subscriber to a publication I believe would not be partisan or biased, I am disappointed to see that many Crikey articles written about the Greens are negative and in some cases baseless. Lidia Thorpe has a right to an opinion, and it’s a legitimate opinion — but she does not control the narrative. The leader of the party has consistently said it will not derail a vote for a referendum. The headline — “Greens look to kill Voice — and hand Labor a potent weapon against them” — isn’t even possible. Do better, Crikey.

Ann Gran writes: A treaty and Voice for First Nations peoples are not either/or. A treaty will enshrine a real Voice. That’s the whole point to a treaty. It gives (or should give) rights and representation. Canada has a treaty. So does New Zealand. Why is it so hard for Australia? After more than 200 years of non-stop, shameful abuse of the First Nations, it is high time the outcomes of the invasion and dispossession are corrected. The Voice to Parliament is a very timid proposition. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it but it would be able to only discuss problems and recommend solutions. It will have no power. Why the idea of a consultative body of this sort needs to be put to a referendum beats me.

Rod Madgwick writes: The adoption of the Voice can, should and will tell two vital stories: first, we will see justice done; second, we will leave no one behind. The point is that First Nations peoples deserve a guaranteed and authentic collective voice. In addition to people of First Nations and Anglo-Irish heritage, Australians are made up of many who are not beneficiaries of colonial and postcolonial oppression — people of Indian, Chinese, European, Latin American, South-East Asian, Middle Eastern, etc, heritage. All can, should and will, I believe, cleave to these two stories.

On angry young men and the global shift in gender voting

Tony Whiteley writes: My wife and I, both 62 years young, are equally strong left-leaning, closer to the Greens’ policy platform than Labor’s on many issues — and particularly on the critical matter of climate change action. We are strong advocates for a more egalitarian society with a fairer distribution of wealth and are outraged that the proposed stage three tax cuts will deliver benefits to the top 1% of income earners in Australia equal to the combined benefit received by the bottom 65% of income earners in Australia. 

Jan Higginson writes: I am a 54-year-old woman and my partner of 28 years is more conservative than I, but he has never been as progressive as he is now. It is finally impossible for him to deny the injustices that have weighed on women and minority groups, and correspondingly the privilege and entitlement enjoyed for so long by white men such as himself. Until men evolve from the patriarchal “power over” paradigm and relate to women as equals we are all up shit creek without a paddle, the fragile natural world included. I know this will not happen in my lifetime. The male ego and its grasping for “power” is the greatest tragedy of our brief, frantic existence on this once beautiful, abundant planet. 

On dissent in ‘progressive’ Victoria

Alex Babauskis writes: The Zoe Buhler case provides a deeper and scary insight into how the Victorian government treats citizens with differing views from its own. The fact that this matter could take nearly two years when the government dropped the charges at the last moment is nothing short of bullying, harassment and intimidation. These behaviours all display a lack of respect at their core, as has been identified in other contexts. None of these ways of behaving is now tolerated in schools, the workplace or socially.  

Imagine the anxiety and frustration Buhler was subjected to, the countless hours of conversation with family and friends, the sleepless nights, and the resultant lack of concentration or focus in daily life as she awaits her day in court. Viewing Victoria as the most progressive state can only be seen through the optics of a road to a deeper socialist state.

On how the rich get richer with SMSFs

Martin Balk writes: That super funds are exploited by the wealthiest is appalling, considering all those people living on the streets and living on peanuts on meagre welfare payments and who are called dole bludgers, scum, etc. They are not. Most are decent people on the wrong side of the money flow. The rich know how the system works because they made the system and went to the same school. Tax the rich over a certain threshold; a maximum tax bracket should be applied; no tax deductions anymore; flat rates for everyone fair and square.

David James writes: A cap on SMSFs of, say, $2 million seems fair, and could be sold to the electorate.

Helen Chadwick writes: I’m not sure anyone who reads Crikey will not agree to a cap on the total held in an SMSF. Super is not a wealth creation scheme to hand on massive amounts of money to future generations and pay little tax in the process. It’s a way of saving over a lifetime of work to spend in retirement to make life more enjoyable and to reduce outlays in the form of an age pension that comes from the public purse. If we keep the original concept of the purpose of super in mind, how could we not agree to a cap?

Lee McManus writes: As a holder of a modest $100,000 super amount (now rolled over into an allocated pension to supplement my age pension) I find the wealth accumulated in these funds obscene. This was never the intent of super and these I assume are the same people who will benefit from the stage three tax cuts. The suggestion to cap super is excellent — the Coalition capped the allocated pension so Labor should show some backbone and adhere to its “fairness to all” mantra. The more this progression to wealth imbalance in Australia continues the more fractured our society will become. The government money clawed back from this could go to those on the abysmal JobSeeker payment and the flow-on effect of their spend would benefit our economy.

On the merits of ‘full employment’

Robert Johnson writes: Historically, there has been no consensus on the definition of full employment; it has varied according to economic and political conditions. HC Coombs defined it as “a slight but persistent shortage of labour” and quantified it as unemployment levels of 4% for males and 2% for females (with low levels of female employment, especially once married, besides other gender-based inequalities).

Politicians in that post-World War II period generally embraced 5% unemployment and the economist Barry Hughes wrote that “economists, for a change, were marginally more optimistic”, generally settling on 3% unemployment. The Vernon Committee of Economic Inquiry in 1965 proposed full employment as 1-1.5% unemployment. By 1974, Coombs proposed 4%. Prevailing context matters. Hughes’ observation in 1980 seems to risk remaining relevant in 2022: “Full employment in its original meaning came to be regarded as too hot to handle, and the concept has been progressively redefined to make life more acceptable to policymakers.”

Benjamin Clark is correct to ask what happened to the “full” adjective to the proposed “employment” white paper. For now, I am keeping optimistic that PM Albanese remains focused on full employment as his primary objective, knowing that it is conditional upon the ambitious structural reforms necessary to achieve a state of full employment that is systemic and sustainable rather than a possible consequence of currency stability. But consensus may be elusive.

If something in Crikey has pleased, annoyed or inspired you, let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.