Letters
Letters to
the editor
Disappointing responses
Only two of the new members of Labor’s caucus – Madonna Jarrett and Anne Urquhart – mentioned the environment or climate change (Karen Barlow, “Exclusive: Labor has first Left-majority caucus”, June 28–July 4). Quite disappointing that this next generation of Labor parliamentarians doesn’t see much urgency in addressing such vital, existential issues. Anthony Albanese can remain confident in continuing to approve new fossil fuel developments, as he is not likely to get much push to change such policy from below.
– Ian Webster, Curtin, ACT
It’s left, right
Having read Barry Jones’s explanation of how the Labor Party’s factions operate (“How Labor factions actually work”, June 7-13), I was disappointed to see your paper uncritically report that Labor has its first Left-majority caucus. The fact is, there is nothing left-wing about the Left. I say this as a party member. Decades ago, the Left called itself the conscience of the party. Not anymore. There is no “left” position on the United States alliance, the welfare state, climate change mitigation, or any other issue. What remains of the old sentiment is embarrassing: I cringed when I read one newly elected Left MP say she is “inspired by the prime minister identifying kindness as a virtue”. The most left-wing thing about the Left is that it is not the Right. The two factions only fight over places in cabinet or parliament, never over policy.
– Kristian Marijanovic, Kingsgrove, NSW
Gas betrayal
Fear of Peter Dutton’s Trump-like approach to the environment and climate was my main reason for voting Labor at the last election. When Murray Watt agreed to Woodside Energy processing gas at Murujuga until 2070, I reacted with a sense of betrayal. My concern escalates reading Bob Brown’s article (“Watt you see is what we’ll get”, June 28–July 4) and in the survey of new Labor members, only Madonna Jarrett and Anne Urquhart mention climate or the environment as issues to champion. I recommend Tim Winton’s Juice as compulsory reading for parliamentarians. Perhaps if they got a sense of what Australia will face living with catastrophic heat, they might put climate action as an issue to champion.
– Jane Robinson, Goolwa, SA
Genuine reform
John Hewson says “genuine tax reform needs to review tax expenditures [revenue forgone] and other expensive concessions to see whether the current circumstances still justify such breaks” (“Walking the talkfest”, June 28–July 4). For example, should income derived from capital (rents and dividends) be taxed at marginal tax rates while income from capital gains (property and shares) is taxed at half marginal tax rates? Should super retirement income be exempt from the income test for a “low income” seniors and pensioners tax offset and Medicare levy as noted in the Retirement Income Review? The Commonwealth’s total tax revenue in 2023/24 was $649.32 billion including personal income tax ($311.579 billion) and company income tax ($144.221 billion). The Parliamentary Budget Office states, “The total amount of tax expenditures in 2023-24 was over $200 billion. If these concessions were administered by governments as additional tax and spending, the Australian government’s budget would be over a third larger.”
– Paul Wales, Woolooware, NSW
Fuelling vandalism
Australia has had its fair share of crooked cops over its short life of white rule. As your editorial devastatingly sets out (“Crooked COP”, June 28–July 4), our climate crookedness will be exposed on the world stage if the government secures the dubious privilege of hosting COP31 next year. Successive COPs have been captured by petrostates and fossil fuel corporations worried by the global energy transition. Are we prepared to stand with Pacific nations and Indigenous Australians and say no to this utter hypocrisy? Will we take action to show the world we do not accept our government’s – and the world’s governments’ – climate vandalism?
– Fiona Colin, Malvern East, Vic
Sports fan
Martin McKenzie-Murray’s sports page has become eagerly anticipated on Saturday morning. And why not when he has the perception to invoke William Hazlitt in a topical context (“A lover of the fighters”, June 28–July 4). He might also have mentioned Hazlitt’s contemporary associate, the poet John Keats, another keen follower of “The Fancy” and not himself averse to a bit of the old biff.
– Stuart Rothwell, Indooroopilly, Qld
Letters are welcome: [email protected]
Please include your full name and address and a daytime telephone number.
Letters may be edited for length and content, and may be published in print and online. Letters should not exceed 150 words.
This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on July 5, 2025.
For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers. We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth. We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care, on climate change, on the pandemic.
All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers. By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential, issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account politicians and the political class.
There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this. In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world, it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.
