How the land lies now: ‘fearful, nasty, apathetic and lazy’

John Peel writes: It’s not surprising that Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory voted No (“The era of reconciliation has ended. Settler Australia refuses to be ‘the other’ to a redemption story”). They all, to put it politely, have their little oddities. But what went wrong in the more sensible states — NSW, Victoria and South Australia?

Perhaps ignorance really is bliss and, oh boy, did the No campaign with its scare tactics and good old-fashioned lies play heavily on that little human foible. The ACT voting Yes says it all about most of the rest of us.

Michelle Goldsmith writes: The decision on Saturday, October 14, 2023: fear; ignorance; nastiness; apathy; laziness.

Ute Mueller writes: The First Nations peoples of this country are a very forgiving mob. After centuries of having been dispossessed and disadvantaged by the white invaders they still were not hostile but asked humbly to just be recognised and have a bit of a say in policy matters that concern them. The majority of the Australians denied that to them.

And why did we commit such a shameless act? Liberal governments wanted to do something positive for “the Aboriginal question” for a very long time. The problem was just that they never progressed from the talking stage to the acting one. After the advent of Trumpism and misinformation worldwide, the Coalition opposition chose that path as a political tool against a naive Labor government on the referendum question and pulled the wool over the eyes of decent people. Ignorance was bliss.

It is only to be hoped that Australians will be remorseful for their decision and that the Liberals won’t profit from what was called lies in the old days.

David Wootton writes: Opposition Leader Peter DuttNo won the battle but will lose the war. Never, ever will this man be prime minister. Let’s hope he stays on for many years and leads the blithering idiots to the oblivion they clearly crave. Ask him in a week how Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s future looks. Jacinta who? 

Protests under protest

Peter Barry writes: Re “The Israel-Hamas war confirms the erosion of the right to protest in Australia”: imposing restrictions on the right to protest is yet another pointer to our steady move to a totalitarian state. Our democratic right to protest is being curbed by permits, restrictions and draconian penalties not dissimilar to those used for heinous acts of grand theft, rape and murder.

The government functions to serve the interests of big business, fossil-fuel companies and gambling monopolies. Peaceful protests, even where slogans are offensive to some, or those that cause temporary inconvenience, should be acceptable, but vandalism is a step too far.

Most Palestinians are decent people interested in a decent family life, as are Jewish people. The terrible revenge being planned on masses of innocent citizens for the heinous acts of a relatively few rabid hotheads will only cause even more misery. Labelling a community of people as subhuman is dangerous. This can only end badly.

Colin Handley writes: No-one condones killing, but a people under extreme unwarranted repression are bound to lash out at breaking point. With the stifling of the right to protest and arrest of whistleblowers in Australia we are on the road to autocracy — especially in the case of Woodside, which has broken CO2 (CCS) agreements and not been held to account by the government that made those agreements. One had hoped for a more nuanced approach from Labor.

Men on a mission

Jock Webb writes: There’s no doubt the Liberals have a few problems with women (“Which bloke is going to replace Marise Payne?”). If they are intelligent, they fear them, and as a cohort they dislike/hate them. As a result, they have a third problem: the fact that there are very few women with real ability in the party. Hardly surprising given the way they treat the ones who are there. Why would any sensible woman go near them?

Hilary Edwards writes: It’s a bet each way whether the Liberals are outright misogynists or sexist chauvinists who hold women second to men.

The Liberal opposition’s attacks on Labor women ministers such as Linda Burney, Catherine King and Katy Gallagher in question time are cowardly. Gallagher appears to be an excellent finance minister who works hard with the treasurer, Jim Chalmers. She is a top dog in government but not to the Liberals — and that’s because she is female. Burney, Indigenous Australians minister, has lost her voice and been abused at the dispatch box on some spurious think-tank lies around the Voice to Parliament. King is transport minister so the dogs of war circle her to make political gain for themselves.

It’s all very well to have more women in Parliament but the Liberal/Nationals make their lives hard. Independent Kylie Tink claimed she felt confronted in the House of Representatives because she dared to call for some respect and dignity in the House.

I don’t know if it’s hate or greed or plain stupidity. Peter Dutton is no intellectual; nor were Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott. It is not good for women, our children or men and our democracy. When are we going to talk openly about the Liberals’ problem? Morrison didn’t mistakenly say women in other countries would be “met with bullets” for marching (#MeToo), and I’ll never forget Abbott suggesting it’s women who do the ironing in Australian households.

Dutton made a big mistake when he spoke like an inadequate husband about Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil when he said: “She is a very angry person. Always very angry and very aggressive.” He can’t see this clever woman as a colleague or deal with her in an appropriate manner. O’Neil talks about serious faults in a massively expensive and vital area of governance for Australia, and Dutton talks like he’s in the playground. My one consolation is that Dutton is a monotonous, tedious, boring person surrounded by evangelicals and right-wing antics.