Letters to
the editor

In the wilderness

The statement by Scott Morrison’s former media chief, Andrew Carswell, that this time voters will see “the construction of a proper policy unit within the Coalition that will craft a policy based on its values” succinctly summarises the Coalition’s policy myopia (Karen Barlow, “Can Sussan Ley rebuild the Liberal Party?”, May 17-23). What about the values of 27 million Australians? If the Coalition does not prioritise the reality of their lives, values and futures, it will be condemned to wander the electoral wilderness for eternity.

– Annie Damelet, Surry Hills, NSW

Wrong decision

Jason Koutsoukis provided background to the undeserved demotion of ministers Mark Dreyfus and Ed Husic (“Exclusive: Albanese ministry decided months before poll”, May 17-23). Information was based on one unnamed source from the Labor Victorian Right with partial confirmation from another unnamed source “close to Marles”, who leads the Victorian Right faction. Comments around Richard Marles accepting wearing blame “to protect the leader at all costs” sound suspect but the article didn’t question it. Overall, the article seemed to facilitate a channelled attempt at blame mitigation for the terrible decision to oust Dreyfus and Husic. Promotion of Daniel Mulino’s and Sam Rae’s possible talents in the article is also a deflection. Any comparison of talent, capability and experience should also be with Dreyfus’s and Husic’s direct replacements – Michelle Rowland and Tim Ayres. I am surprised The Saturday Paper published such an unbalanced article. Labor has been diminished by a terrible decision, but that is just one opinion by a possible ex-Labor voter from Dreyfus’s Isaacs electorate.

– Tom Maher, Aspendale, Vic

The real issue

As an inter-country adoptive mother I was appalled to read of the falsification of documents leading to children who were not orphans being adopted (Martin McKenzie-Murray “Emerging from the ‘adoption fog’ ”, May 17-23). My heart goes out to the adoptees and birth parents affected. Nevertheless, some assertions need to be addressed, for instance, that “inter-country adoption is mostly unconscionable”. My then husband worked as a doctor in an orphanage in Saigon in early 1975 before we were evacuated. Our orphanage was one of the “good ones”, but even in ours, conditions were awful with barely supervised two-year-olds scraping paint off walls in the absence of toys and caring adults. In other orphanages, babies grew up in their cots, sometimes until they were four, unable to walk when released.That was what was unconscionable, not the adoption into loving homes, albeit in another country. As for “privilege and power and racism and colonialism that are often entwined with inter-country adoptions”, all I know is that the adoptive couples that we knew in the 1970s were just ordinary Australians who saw a need and responded with compassion.

– Jenny Goldie, Cooma, NSW

Family connection

Martin McKenzie-Murray’s article was devastating to read. It is important, though, to note that not all inter-country adoption processes were corrupt. After considering adopting from South Korea, we adopted our daughter from another country with the help of parents who had been through it themselves. We travelled to to adopt her, and met her birth mother. Eighteen years later, we met her again when we took our daughter back to see the land of her birth. Having seen how her child had grown, our daughter’s birth mother said she had done the right thing in putting her up for adoption. Sadly, not all of those adoptions were successful, but that circumstance is not confined to adoptions, inter-country or otherwise.

– Name withheld

One more election

In “My last election” (May 17-23), Barry Jones rightly bewails the factional whip-cracking that forced Ed Husic’s departure as “the best minister for science since 1990”. The science portfolio is frequently undervalued and served by impatient ministers, untouched by scientific sensibilities or skills, either on their way up in prime ministerial favour or, more likely, down. Today we must demand a most erudite minister of science to lead the vital, national debates that will make the best (and navigate the worst) of what science increasingly delivers to our quotidian lives. The author went back 35 years to match Husic. Perhaps he was thinking of Simon Crean, but, with a twinkle in his eye, I believe the reference was to Crean’s immediate predecessor. Even in his 90s, the Honourable Barry Jones might just have another election in him.

– Adam Jenney, Clifton Hill, Vic