Letters
Letters to
the editor
Get out now
As American Big Pharma pushes for the Australian government to pay more for medicines, thus pushing up the cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, our prime minister has a perfect opportunity to offer the United States government a choice (Jason Koutsoukis, “Exclusive: Australia to engage US lobbyists to defend PBS”, August 2-8). Australia does not have an unlimited budget and I suspect voters would much prefer their tax dollars to be spent on the PBS, from which they benefit now, than on AUKUS, which will provide no benefit for decades, if ever. Australia should cut its losses on AUKUS and get out now.
– Juliet Flesch, Kew, Vic
The deal
There is no obligation on any pharmaceutical company to have their medicines listed on the PBS. The companies negotiate a price they consider commercially attractive given the additional sales they expect as a result of PBS listing. The price the government is willing to pay is based on the overall benefit to the Australian people. Rather than pay lobbyists, I suggest the government simply offers all those companies whose products are listed on the PBS the opportunity to withdraw from the scheme (where there are generic equivalents or products of equal effectiveness). If the company wants their product listed on the PBS, then it is clear they find the deal fair.
– Malcolm McPherson, Mortdale, NSW
Opaque statements
Of emissions-enabling carbon capture and storage (CCS), Polly Hemming writes: “It has no serious role in cutting emissions from transport, agriculture or industry – despite Resources Minister Madeleine King insisting it has ‘a vital role to play’ in meeting Australia’s net zero targets” (“Climate target malpractice”, August 2-8). The Northern Territory government website states: “At least 90 per cent of Middle Arm Precinct emissions would be captured, compressed and transported to a nearby geological storage formation for permanent storage.” Canberra has given “major project status” to the Bonaparte CCS project, which wants to store captured carbon dioxide under the seabed about 275 kilometres offshore from Darwin. CCS technology is driven by fossil fuels; it does not reduce emissions. The sane course of action would be to invest in renewables.
– Fiona Colin, Malvern East, Vic
Moral imperative
As Paul Bongiorno reports, 140 countries recognising Palestinian statehood has not fed one starving person (“Albanese firms stance on Gaza”, August 2-8). It seems to me that calls for a state at this time are only symbolic. With 700,000 settlers in the West Bank and Gaza in ruins, what state is left? Some 30 years ago photographer Kevin Carter won a Pulitzer Prize for an image of a dying child in Sudan, a vulture hovering. He was censured by many for “not doing anything to help” and took his own life shortly afterwards. How far have we come? Ed Husic is right. There is a moral imperative to feed the people now.
– Jonathan Silberberg, Cow Bay, Qld
Robust study
Judith Hugo’s letter (“Inside Watt’s push for Murujuga World Heritage”, July 19–25) misrepresents the facts surrounding Murujuga’s World Heritage listing and the science supporting protection of its rock art. The Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC), representing five Traditional Owner groups, led an Indigenous-driven bid supported by both governments and endorsed by UNESCO for its Outstanding Universal Value. Central to the nomination is the Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program (MRAMP) – a collaborative, five-year, peer-reviewed scientific study led by MAC with Curtin University. It is the most comprehensive research of its kind, and its findings confirm that managed emissions and rock art can coexist without harm. MAC’s delegation to UNESCO worked tirelessly to counter misinformation and ensure senior cultural voices were heard. Had the position advocated by Save Our Songlines and its allies prevailed, Murujuga was at risk of lesser protection than what MAC has achieved. Their demands – including the removal of emissions and industry – are unachievable and would come at significant national cost. Rejecting MRAMP’s rigorous science in favour of selectively cited, less robust studies undermines the integrity of the process. This is not a forum for activists pursuing unrelated agendas. It is a celebration of Indigenous leadership and a commitment to long-term protection.
– Peter Hicks, chair MAC board, and the MAC board
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 August 9, 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.
