Albanese and his team offer a Labor of love — but show some guts, gang!

In Your Say readers tell Crikey what they think about our stories. Today Tom Ravlic’s suggestion that the ‘new’ Albanese government is just same-old-same-old politics struck a raw nerve.

On a report card for Labor

Mike Karpeles writes: Our so-called democracy has been around for some 120 years with a few shining examples and far too many deadbeats. So when a Whitlam or an Albanese come along, why do some self-righteous people feel the need to denigrate those higher up the intellectual ladder from them? Positive suggestions are always welcome, even essential, but denigration should be left to the likes of Sky after dark who can wallow in the murky depths of negativity — where they can be happily ignored.

Gary Gibbon writes: I’d very much disagree with Tom Ravlic — at this stage anyway — that the Albanese Labor government is just same-old same-old. I’ve generally been more than pleased by what it’s done and which seems to be being done with a definite sense of purpose, energy and adherence to its electoral policies. In short, it’s apparent it is doing what it said it would do.

Yes, question time is unlikely to reset in tone and structure any time soon. But what’s obvious to me is that Anthony Albanese and his ministers don’t spend their days trying to out-snipe and belittle their opposition counterparts, unlike previous Coalition governments. They seem far more interested in working towards achieving their policies. However, I would like to see them be braver and do things such as abolish the patently unfair and expensive stage three tax cuts. 

Geoff Davies writes: What Ravlic misses is that he’s talking only about the old parties. The whole point of independents is to break away from all the downsizing of expectations, secrecy, corruption etc. No, I did not expect much more from Labor. It has long been clear it has no vision and little ambition except to get and retain power. Yes, I am very annoyed with it, because what it’s doing falls so far short on many key issues: homelessness inequality, marching blindly into war with China, failing to save the planet. Being not the Coalition is not nearly enough.

Brian Scholes writes: I subscribed to Crikey because I thought it was above this sort of nonsense. Have you been asleep at the wheel and not noticed the things the ALP has achieved since the May election? Question time is nowhere near as bad as when the Coalition was in government. Lift your game or I am out of here.

Perry Gretton writes: Labor has scored the hat-trick. First, its reluctance to prevent further fossil fuel projects from going ahead, then its refusal to consider axing the stage three tax cuts, and now its willingness to accept Peter Dutton’s “help” in getting the national anti-corruption commission bill through Parliament — the price of which is secrecy of the NACC’s inquiries. It will pay a price for such disappointment.

Sybille Davidson writes: Albanese and his team are a breath of fresh air. In my opinion the new bunch in the federal Parliament is the best thing this country has seen for a long time. Things are happening for the country’s benefit without any sign that these guys are timeserving in their own interest — or perhaps just serving big industry and some well-heeled mates.

If nothing else, Ravlic is being totally unrealistic. I do not expect the new guys to be able to undo all the mischief and mayhem of the previous nine years within the space of a few months, but it’s such a relief to have a cabinet of ministers who are not only obviously intelligent and across their briefs but also, by all impressions, genuinely motivated to serve the public interest of the wider Australian community.

It is clear that Albanese as PM is more circumspect and less rabid in his dealings with the new Dutton opposition. He is of a mind to bring all the members of Parliament to consensus where it seems possible. That is true leadership. I do, though, anticipate there will be great benefits in having contributions from the independents and Greens.

On how best to care for the aged

Fergus Moffat writes: Without huge pay rises the shortfall in aged care cannot be remedied. The pay rate(s) for aged care workers should be closer to the nursing salary bands and other emergency medical services’ levels and less to the subsistence level they now are. Then the regime of qualification and training must be improved. That’s half the problem. The other half is the business model of for-profit owners. There’s something dreadfully wrong in taxpayer funding for this sector being able to be passed to investors via dividends. Then the executives pay themselves, and the care workers and residents get the dregs. The entire structure is an obscenity.

John Smith writes: The problem is these countries have a very low birthrate. Society has become inhumane. The family has disappeared from birth. Babies are looked after by strangers. Aged humans are discarded. What we need to do is bring back old family values — parents, children and grands living together. This will solve problems such as housing shortage, food waste, waste of resources, non-existence of love and care. We talk about human rights. What about human obligations?

Alex Antunes writes: I started working in aged care this year. I am 46 and have been able to set myself up financially because of my previous job in the information technology sector. I’m lucky to be offering home help to people in my area. I mostly support people in the mornings. I get a lot of personal satisfaction from this and I feel part of my clients’ families. It’s beautiful, relationship-building work — so much more satisfying than my office job. However, I don’t know how young people can support themselves on the wage of a personal care attendant. 

On the big gun streamers and local content

Phillip Mahnken writes: Streaming film and television are among media through which we absorb and reflect and argue about how the world works, what has happened in this place, what it means. Diversity is excellent, including international perspectives and imaginings about life, the universe and everything. But without local Australian content, where are you and I represented? Our history, our politics, our multicultural challenges and successes, our humour and our arguments, our lands and seas? Without a good dollop of Australian stories, we may as well replace the Union Jack on our flag with a spray of streaming company icons.

On the chances of a Voice succeeding

Terry Mills writes: So far there hasn’t been any real discussion on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Once the legislation to authorise a referendum has been passed by both houses, the nuts and bolts of the yes and no cases can be sorted — and presumably the campaign proper will be funded by the government. There are a number of First Nations voices already saying that this referendum is tokenism. Prominent among them is Senator Jacinta Price, a Warlpiri-Celtic woman, who has noted that with 10 other Indigenous voices in the 47th Parliament, there doesn’t appear to be a need for a constitutional voice and that perhaps the Parliament would be better served if attention and resources were directed to education, housing, healthcare and domestic violence in Aboriginal communities.

Alison Bussell writes: Is a referendum on Indigenous equality acceptable to the Australian electorate? That depends of course on the ability and persuasive arts of whatever advertising agency the government chooses to use. We have seen how people were hypnotised into voting for Scott Morrison, a man totally unsuited for a role in political life let alone as leader of our nation. By cobbling together an easy-to-remember brand of ScoMo from his very bland name, Morrison created a memorable hook to catch the unwary and make himself more memorable. Progress a Voice to Parliament by hiring the best advertising agency and jingle writers plus the bloke who dreamed up ScoMo. For good measure you could throw in Guy Sebastian who with his mellow voice could continually croon the tune to us. The yes vote will be a landslide.

On Liz Cheney’s courage in taking the fight to Trump

John Gleeson writes: Three cheers for Liz Cheney for having the guts to spell out just what Donald Trump means to democracy. We have watched the decline in standards in America for many years and seeing the usurpation of democracy by Trump has been an unedifying spectacle.

Trump is a danger to a free society, and more so, as he is an exemplar of what a revolting, tawdry chancer can get away with. The Republican Party is seeing its core vote diminish and will do anything it can to cling to power. Joe Biden’s mandate to counter this is simple: one man/woman, one vote to be protected at all costs; Trump to be called to account for his disgusting behaviour, and the utterly lousy, partisan media to be confronted. How the politicisation of the judiciary is going to be halted is a question for the ages. 

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.