Your Say: Dyson Heydon has dishonoured Australia’s highest civilian honour

It’s not just his fellow honourees who want former justice Dyson Heydon to lose his Companion of the Order of Australia (AC). Crikey readers feel the same way, as today’s instalment of Your Say makes abundantly clear. They wouldn’t mind Scott Morrison losing his title, either…

On divesting Dyson Heydon of his AC

Bill Robinson writes: In my opinion, Dyson Heydon should be stripped of the AC. He was a powerful man in a powerful position who abused that power in advancing unwanted sexual attentions on young female staff who were in a subservient role to him.  He is not fit to continue to hold Australia’s highest civilian honour.

Ghillian Sullivan writes: Dyson Heydon has disgraced the Companion of the Order of Australia honour and should lose it. A move for those we are meant to revere to be squeaky clean would be a great start to a fairer and more just society. No more “boys will be boys”! 

Maggie Deeth writes: I am strongly in favour of an impartial ruling on the matter of sexual harassment in any situation, and although in general I am somewhat cynical about such awards as received by this man it seems inappropriate for him to be counted among those who are regarded as deserving.

On Albo for PM

Wayne Lynch wrote: Forget Bunnings charisma, happy-clappy charismatics and talking in (forked) tongues. We want a leader with ideals, ideas, ethics and a head that holds a moral compass and a hand not afraid to hold a metaphorical hose in a fire (as opposed to a real one in a hairdressing salon photo-op) and who won’t escape for a “well-earned break” in an overseas tropical paradise when his country is burning and his people need his support and resolve. Remember the Queen’s parents during World War II? It’s called public service for a reason.

We want a leader with a vision for a better Australia for all Australians — not just another scumbag jockeying for a parliamentary pension and a place at the trough. Albanese will do his best to sweep the troughs free of snouts. 

Clare McKay writes: I’m disappointed in your article on Anthony Albanese. Why would a serious journalist care what a politician looks like, how much he weighs etc? That’s something many journalists reserve for women. To say losing weight is a ploy to attract voters treats your readers as idiots. As we get older we become more conscious about our weight because it could affect our hearts. The side effect of losing weight is you feel better about yourself and dress better. I know, I’ve been there.

I’m more interested to know if he has the manner to connect with people, to listen to all sides of an argument, and to not be stuck so much in an ideology that he can’t see any other way but his. Also, does he care about the underprivileged? Is he prepared to do something about inequality?

Sara Dowse writes: Yes, I predict the refurbished Albanese will prove a good prime minister. What first impressed me about him was his lone prescient observation after the July 2010 ousting of Kevin Rudd when he said: “We have just killed two prime ministers.” He displayed a rare ability to see the danger when all about him had lost their heads. This country needs a safe pair of hands — like those we have in the current opposition leader.

Brian Crooks writes: It seem to win the election all Albo has to do is simply say: “I’m not Scott Morrison.” At least Morrison has managed to unite the nation if only by having everybody hating him. It’s as simple as that: the majority will vote against Morrison and not for Albanese. The old saying that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them has never been truer. Jack the Ripper would be a better chance as leader to win the election for the Coalition than Morrison.

On Australian oligarchs

Terry Constanti writes: You ask is it fair to call Australian billionaires oligarchs? Oligarchy is where the rich and powerful rule overtly; it is the rule of the few. These people mentioned in the article — those who do concern themselves with influencing politics — are in my opinion more accurately described as plutocrats. A plutocrat is wealthy and uses that wealth and power to influence events covertly. 

Has something in Crikey fired you up? Let us know your thoughts 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.