Women should decide on having children, not the treasurer

Has a senior female politician ever opined they would “like to see Australians have more children” (“Let’s have more babies: Chalmers”, May 10)? This back-to-the-future comment from a privileged male politician invokes current realities of which we dare not speak.

Firstly, who bears these babies, Treasurer? What personal, financial and professional sacrifices do women make, outside the privileged classes? Secondly, how does the underbelly of negative attitudes, discrimination and outrageous violence against women impact perceptions of young women? How do they trust that the potential powerlessness and dependency of motherhood won’t unexpectedly make them vulnerable to the unknowns in others?

Lastly, Chalmers thinks “people are leaving it later” to have children, which refers to women. Secure family housing is unattainable for young women. They see it vacuumed up by investors and their exclusion is compounded by unacceptable student debts. Not to mention the disdain many young have regarding the unquestioned national addiction to exponential economic and population growth. What a misguided comment near Mother’s Day from a Labor Treasurer, who fiddles at the edges of real issues for young Australian women in 2024. Robyn Dalziell, Kellyville

As an old childless bloke I ask, wouldn’t you be a bit worried about the sort of world your baby is being born into these days? The threat of instability and war has always been with us, but the climate change monster is a reality show straight out of mid-century horror movies. What sort of future is it offering?
Tom Mangan, Woy Woy Bay

Treasurer, do you think a young couple, having committed to a monumental mortgage to fund a two-bedroom unit costing nearly $1 million, are going to have three children and bring them up in that flat? Show some Labor guts, enact those well-documented reforms that enable access to a housing opportunity as a right for all Australians, and an increase in the birthrate will naturally occur. Duncan Cameron, Lane Cove

The Great Barrier Reef is close to functional death as a result of ocean warming, parts of Western Australia’s magnificent forests are dying from heat and drought, and yet the Treasurer wants us to have more babies. It should be incumbent on everyone studying economics and business to do a co-major in natural sciences to put them in touch with the real world, which will determine our collective future. Why would any intelligent individual wish to bring more children into a world facing such a grave outlook? We must stop giving undue prominence to the advice of economists and the business lobby. Rod Hughes, Epping

Why would anyone bring more children into this world knowing that current policy is to expand the extraction and burning of fossil fuels that are sending our planet to hell in a handbasket? Graeme Finn, Earlwood

Chalmers seems to have forgotten about his “well being” aims, and certainly needs some environmental sustainability education. Population growth is the cause of all environmental issues facing life on this planet: biodiversity losses and species extinctions, climate catastrophe, ocean acidification, over fishing, coral reef deaths etc.

Encouraging people to have more babies gives no consideration to the child’s future life, and given the state of our environment now, it won’t be very rosy. Karen Joynes, Bermagui

Jim Chalmer’s call for Australians to have more babies is unimaginative and confirms that Treasury is simply running a Ponzi population scheme to continuously plug in greater numbers of either babies or migrants at the bottom of the pyramid. The more we plug people into the base the more problems we are creating for ourselves. A shortage of housing to buy or rent, public transport and road chaos, food and water security and climate change are all symptoms of unrestrained population growth. Surely people can see that if our population continues growing that our individual quality of life will be diminished. In Australia, we’ve got plenty of space, but do we really need to fill it? Neil Reckord, Gordon (ACT)

Treasurer Jim Chalmers urges us to have more children. Surely, in these times, quality of life should be foremost in people minds, not over population and the problems that it brings? It might be best to give the procreation issue a rest for a while. Dorothy Gliksman, Cedar Brush Creek

Councillors are not elected to micromanage the library collection

I’m one of those “religious people” in Cumberland LGA who Steve Christou claims to represent; I’ve been a member of a conservative church for 25 years (Letters, May 10). I’m also a librarian, in another sector. He’s never asked my opinion about banning books, so let’s start with overreach. It is improper for six councillors to be micromanaging the library collection. Councillors should be serving and representing their wards.

Next: competence. Public library materials are selected by qualified librarians following the collection development policy. This policy reflects the needs of our whole community, and abides by relevant laws and regulations. If councillors want to rewrite the collection development policy, they should obtain a library degree and a job first.

Lastly: while some may delight in the removal of these books the rest of us are wondering who’s next. There is no end to the insanity of book-burners, but they all start by persecuting minorities. Let’s stop them now. Ellen Hrebeniuk, Lidcombe

I have been an early childhood educator for 20 years. The children in our centre are acknowledged and celebrated for the different traditions and values they bring to our safe space. We promote these differences through a creative curriculum that allows the children to learn, value and understand their world which is steeped in diversity.

The councillors who voted for the banning of the books have not considered the impact this message sends to rainbow families, who also reside in the Cumberland area. Children in a loving family thrive and develop to their full potential more than those who are marginalised, stigmatised and disrespected for being in a “non-traditional” family. Please give children their right to be valued for who they are, so they can grow as caring, respectful and kind citizens. Cynthia Hartman, Caringbah

Take a chill pill. No one has prohibited anyone from accessing and reading such material. Council has merely voted not to supply particular books as part of its library resources. If that is morally wrong, then evidently I am lacking in morals. Parents who want their children to read books and other materials on same-sex families can acquire the material for them. If not prepared to spend the money, they need only take their children to a library in another local council area and have their children read about such families there.

If adults are unhappy with the elected council’s decision, then they can vote councillors out at the next election. But “I don’t get to vote”, I hear some say; and nor should you, if you don’t live there. Mind your own business, I say. Ross Drynan, Lindfield

The diversity brigade seem to be struggling with the fact that people don’t all have the same opinions as they do. I thought tolerance of all and every religious belief was a good thing. Deirdre Smith, McMahons Point

Writers opposed to the Cumberland Council’s book ban have stressed the need for children to be able to read about families like their own. I would argue that it is just as important to encourage children’s curiosity to learn about lives which may be different. Ignorance does not lead to understanding and tolerance. Judith Campbell, Drummoyne

As a child I read one particular book, which at the time I didn’t find horrific. A German book of morals, basically, Der Struwwelpeter. One story being that if you sucked your thumb the “Scissors man” would come and cut your thumb off, with a picture showing this and the blood-dripping. I don’t feel that I was traumatised by this, rather that as an adult I viewed the story differently, and find it horrific now. The same goes for many classic fables that my generation read. Should they be banned? Read widely, take in different views, then make informed choices from that. Rosemary Wolf, Mount Warrigal

Trouble with names

Last decade we had four Zubins in the Australian Zoroastrian Association cricket team in Sydney (Letters, May 10). All four were named after the famous music maestro Zubin Mehta, who has given many concerts in Sydney. Our president’s first name is Zubin. Kersi Meher-Homji, St Ives

My wife’s workplace had a Bernadette for years and eventually another new employee with the same name arrived, causing lots of confusion. So, being ABC fans, they adopted the nicknames of B1 and B2. Worked a treat. John Stephens, Keiraville

When living in London in the sixties, we had three Bills. When answering the phone, Bill Warner was known to say, “Which one do you want? They come in three sizes”. Bill Riley, Cammeray

How about three Johns as neighbours and all John H. Now I’m just Hol. John Hollingsworth, Evans Head

My daughter-in-law and I share the same name. When phoning her mother I was thrilled to be announced with “Mum, it’s Elizabeth the First”. Elisabeth Goodsall, Wahroonga

Spare a thought for my three mates: Sean, Shawn and Shaun. Confuses the heck out of Siri. Jeremy Brender, West Richmond (SA)

Campus protests raise uncomfortable questions

David Crowe is correct that the Hamas actions on October 7 were appalling terrorist actions (“Uni unrest a job for lawmakers”, May 10). But in his condemnation of the protests across universities, he ignores the fact that the Israel government has been a de facto terrorist organisation for decades across the West Bank and is currently carrying out de facto appalling terrorist actions in Gaza. These actions should be protested not only for their extraordinary inhumanity but also because they create huge long-term issues across the Middle East region unless a two-state agreement is reached. Peter Abelson, Mosman

Crowe asks a variety of prudent questions in determining the correct balance between freedom of speech and preventing hate on our campuses.

One question I can safely answer from first-hand experiences of students on campus is that there is a difference between extremist chants being made in Hyde Park versus those on campus. For students going to university to learn, they currently have no say in their exposure to extremism and hate speech if they want to get a degree. David Faktor, Bondi

Your report begs the question, where is the line to be drawn that begins with the accusation of hate speech and then stifles the moral obligation to protest against oppression and injustice? It would be reasonable to argue that censorship of voices on campus banning the use of terms which have different meanings for different groups of people, in a time of war and possible genocide, would be an infringement of free speech. It would be a travesty of justice if only one voice gets to be heard because only that side has the sympathetic ear. This is really a matter to be tested in court, not handed to the attorney general. Vanessa Tennent, Oatley

Crowe hits the nail on the head – when university students are blatantly supporting a terrorist organisation over a democratically elected government, it represents a sad state of affairs on university campuses. When Jewish students are too frightened to attend lectures and tutorials at one of our major tertiary institutions, this is disturbing too. And the continual chanting of “river to the sea” is a call for the displacement of millions from their country. Alas, the Albanese government seems more intent on preserving Labor’s vote than protecting Jewish Australians. Evan Parsons, Thornleigh

It’s time to get rid of the protest camps. Call the police and have them removed because there should be no place for them on the grounds of universities. Instead, genuinely enrolled students can be invited to debate their points of view in the legitimate arena – the debating hall. Surely that’s where freedom of speech is at its best. Helen Drew, Mt Riverview

The objection to students currently involved in the pro-Gaza protests bearing signs mentioning intifada and “from the river to the sea” seems to be a case of straining at gnats while swallowing camels, if you pardon the New Testament allusion. According to the International Court of Justice, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and the actions of the IDF bordering on crimes against humanity. So who stands on the moral high ground? Diane Dennis, Epping

Our priorities are askew when we are more concerned about students chanting “From the river to the sea” than about the Netanyahu government’s near fulfilment of its ambition to extend Israel from the sea to the Jordan River. David Dixon, Bundeena

It is not antisemitic for citizens and students to protest and call out the genocide in Gaza. Michael Fox, Pacific Palms

Problem delayed

The scenes from Gaza described by Sacha Myers are truly heartbreaking, but the ceasefire she calls for would not solve the problem – just delay it (“I saw these horrors. Don’t look away”, May 10). An immediate ceasefire would leave Hamas in power in Gaza, and it would quickly rebuild its military and attack Israel again and again until it is destroyed. Hamas leaders have promised to do so.

Israel would have no choice but to prevent these ongoing attacks through its own military action, and because Hamas hides between and under its civilians those civilians would again be impacted. Hamas needs to release the hostages and surrender. Unfortunately, all the international pressure on Israel makes that less likely, as Hamas feels it is at least winning the PR war by sacrificing its civilians. Alan Shroot, Forrest (ACT)

Enough is enough

Even if President Joe Biden’s warning to Israel regarding the sale of weapons – should a Rafah offensive go ahead – is based on electioneering, it sends a message to Israel that enough is enough (“Biden to cut off arms supply to Israel if Rafah is invaded”, May 10). Throughout the conflict, which has seen Gaza razed, Israel has told the Palestinians that if they go here or there they will be safe. The statistics tell us otherwise. There is a grave humanitarian crisis in Gaza, caused by Israeli politicians. The Palestinians need a ceasefire, Israel needs a ceasefire, the world wants a ceasefire. If Biden can pull it off with his embargo it will be a step towards sanity. Genevieve Milton, Dulwich Hill

Bad gas

Your correspondent’s assertion that natural gas is a relatively clean fossil fuel is highly inaccurate (Letters, May 10). Methane is a significant contributor to global warming and its leakage at every stage of the process is heavily, and probably deliberately, underreported, particularly in Australia. Alan Robertson, Campbell ACT

The Greens and some of your correspondents advocate the immediate end to gas extraction. While I wish we had begun the process of transitioning to renewables much earlier, at present the infrastructure for energy storage is not yet sufficient. Imagine the catastrophic consequences of cutting off dispatchable energy supply too early. Widespread blackouts – no cooking, refrigeration, hot water, lighting, etc – for unknown lengths of time. No government can allow that possibility to occur. If Labor did that, they would be kicked out at the next election, and we would be back to the Coalition, and they certainly will not support the necessary transition in an appropriate timeframe. Keith Chester, Dee Why

Housing headache

It is funny to see Ku-ring-gai Council challenging the NSW government’s decision to increase housing without considering additional infrastructure (“Minister blasts council for plan to sue government over housing policy”, May 10). At some level of growth there is no ability to provide adequate infrastructure for a community. When do we say no to developer greed? These taxes are designed to raise funding for the infrastructure required to support the increased volume of people in the community caused by the development. If the development is not profitable without covering these costs, it should not go ahead. John Pens, Clontarf

Hot issue

It only takes a tiny 5 degrees drop in global temperatures to cause an ice age (“This budget could make or break Chalmers as treasurer”, May10). So our inexorable global heating trajectory of 3 degrees and beyond will make earth totally uninhabitable. Yet “the great economic managers” under Tony Abbott killed the carbon price, which was the best and cheapest way, economy wide, to reduce our emissions from fossil fuels. Conservative federal politicians still doubt the science, and talk up nuclear but never planned for it. It’s no wonder they’re being replaced by teals on this most pressing issue of our time. Sue Young, Bensville

Today’s mail

Immediacy of delivery has changed the type of letters, form and length (Letters, May 10). With snail mail 35 years ago letters (four-day turnaround when I began) were considered in opinion and lengthy in thought. Fax changed the game with increased immediacy and some writers left floundering with lack of access. Email quickened the pace and often letters have now become clever thought bubbles – the memes of the letters page. Our lives have changed and so has the Herald letters page. It is one reason it is embraced so universally. Janice Creenaune, Austinmer

The problem with the letters to the editor today is they seem to cater to a certain political class and not one that provokes discussion. I am reminded of a powerful female politician in Washington D.C. who, when Donald Trump was elected, said that, “I did not know one person who would vote for him.” She just was not listening. Roger Cedergreen, South Hurstville

One of the “joys” of having a snail-mail letter published in the Herald was the troll responses. That don’t seem to happen with the modern set-up. As we were the only people with my surname in our shire, the trolls easily found their way to our PO box. Why anyone would pay to post vitriol that could not be replied to mystified me then, but the rise of the internet troll just confirms the existence of this cowardly stupidity. Lance Rainey, Rushforth

Postscript

“A philosopher said it best: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. And it’s reassuring to see that most Australians believe this too”, wrote Sue Casiglia of North Ryde following the response to the Herald‘s report about Cumberland Council banning a book about same-sex marriage in their libraries.

Of the hundreds of letters we received all but a handful would agree with Geoff Gilligan of Coogee, who wrote: ″⁣Perhaps Steve Christou might watch the movie of Fahrenheit 451. (Don’t bother reading the book, Steve.) It depicts a society in which the government thinks books are dangerous and it’s the duty of the fire brigade to find and burn them. The final scenes show old people who have memorised books teaching them to young people so they will live on.” But one writer who supported the council decision told us that “correspondents were forgetting 40 per cent of Australians considered same-sex marriage wrong and are offended their views are being ignored by those who are elected by them.”

There was no disagreement about the Treasurer’s suggestion we need more babies. “Is the good doctor Jim simply Laboring under a misconception?” asked Cherrybrook’s Allan Gibson. He may be, if letter writers’ response is a guide. Lack of housing, an overburdened planet and an escalating climate crisis, as well as ongoing conflicts, led many to ask why anyone would want to bring more children into the world.

You’ll find extra letters online, where you can also join the conversation: perfect entertainment for a wet weekend. As always, thank you for your contribution. Pat Stringa, letters editor

• To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
• The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.