Australian team hypocrites and ugly winners

Hypocrisy is to complain about something while doing the same; the Australian cricket team and many of the letter writers are demonstrating it (“Australians stand their ground over planned dismissal”, July 4). Even if Bairstow himself has “stumped” someone in this manner is no justification for Australia to do the same. I am not justifying the behaviour of MCC members, which was boorish at best; however, Australian players and supporters have behaved in exactly the same way. I used to enjoy test cricket but no longer watch as the Australian team are such ugly winners that I can no longer enjoy it. Brenton McGeachie, Queanbeyan West

Ashes test

Ashes test Credit: Reuters/Matthew Childs

The real test of Ben Stokes’s claim that, if he had been captain, he would have recalled Bairstow, would come if, in the next Test, an Australian batsman were to be dismissed in a similar fashion. My guess is that, unless England were in a position to win comfortably, Stokes wouldn’t recall the batsman, justifying his action on the grounds of tit for tat. So much for “the spirit of cricket”. Rob Jackson, Cheltenham

When are adults going to speak up and say enough, now behave? Cricket is a game. That is all that it is or ever will be. And yet, once again, our children are shown how childish adults can be when they lose. It is way past time for the English and Australians to act like adults and say sorry for past perceived slights and get on with playing the game of cricket. Henry Spirek, Muswellbrook

If only the sandpaper had not come out, Australia’s moral ground might be higher. Dale Shaddock, Singleton

Take it easy on the Long Room – they are just Monty Python fans doing the “Upper Class Twit of the Year” sketch. John Dinan, Cheltenham

As those who booed Adam Goodes revealed who they really were beneath their sporty jumpers, so those at Lord’s who booed the Australian cricket team revealed who they really were beneath their lairy blazers. John Lewis, Port Macquarie

Is the interpretation of “spirit of the game” dependent on how much has been consumed before the lunch break by MCC members in the Long Room at Lord’s? George Zivkovic, Northmead

One good thing to come out of the stumping controversy is that it will provide fodder for countless pub discussions for decades to come. It might even surpass the Trevor Chappell underarm incident. Ross MacPherson, Seaforth

No doubt the sanctimonious McCullum, Stokes, and elitist members at Lord’s regard the foul-mouthed send-off of Usman Khawaja by England’s fast bowler Ollie Robinson in the first Ashes Test as perfectly in keeping with “the spirit of the game”? Rob Phillips, North Epping

It’s interesting that the Poms raise the issue of “spirit of the game” when they are the losers but weren’t troubled by their own use of bodyline tactics when 98% of balls were bowled at our batsmen during the latter part of our 2nd innings. The term hypocrites comes to mind. Ian Ferrier, Long Jetty

Now that Rishi Sunak has joined the pile-on over “stumpgate”, looks like AUKUS is dead. Good thing the Americans don’t play cricket. Kevin Fell, Cooks Hill

On the origin of specious arguments

Josh Bornstein’s excellent article on the No campaign’s adoption of the Trumpist blueprint of lies and twisted arguments (“Yes, we need this affirmative action”, July 4) is perfectly encapsulated in his statement “there is not a single non-Indigenous Australian clamouring for equal opportunity of life expectancy with Indigenous Australians”.

Dutton’s justification that non-Indigenous (white) Australians will be disadvantaged by the Voice is specious. Australia has been divided by race since 1788, and it’s not the white population who suffered dispossession, slavery, and colonialism.

It is time to heal and reconcile. The Yes campaign would do well to employ Bornstein’s cogent arguments to counter the lies and inherent racial prejudice on which the No campaign is based. The Voice is the first constitutional step towards justice for First Nations people. Australia mustn’t be swayed by lies and arguments based on maintaining white advantage.
Gerardine Grace, Leura

A Yes supporter at a rally in Sydney.

A Yes supporter at a rally in Sydney.Credit: Steven Siewert

Excellent article by Bornstein today. Peter Dutton has made an absurd claim that the Voice would lead to a situation where “some Australians are more equal than others”. The reality is completely the opposite. The Voice could initiate real progress toward correcting the shameful inequality that we live with at present. Jim Pollitt, Wahroonga

Bornstein says “the Voice provides a critical opportunity to confer constitutional recognition, and establish a modest consultative mechanism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Australians”. Dutton on the other hand claims it would create a country in which some Australians are more equal than others. Don’t worry white Australia, even if you have the decency to vote yes, you’ll still remain more equal than that other mob. Nicholas Beauman, Neutral Bay

Bornstein says the No campaign is using Trump tactics but can only give us one example, that Dutton asserts the Voice will create a country in which “some Australians are more equal than others”. Many Australians believe that the Voice is unfair and goes against the democratic notion of one vote for each person. We all want recognition for our Indigenous people but do not want the advisory body put in the Constitution. Everyone should be equal in our founding document. Pamela Shepherd, Balgowlah

Peter Dutton is the one trying to keep this country divided by race, with his opposition to the Voice. “Protracted inequality” is not solved by pretending it doesn’t exist. Affirmative action does work. It starts with saying sorry and then by listening. Geoff Nilon, Mascot

I’d like to offer my method for voting for the Voice, it’s really quite simple. If Dutton, Hanson, and Abbott are against it, then my vote is yes. Barrington Salter, Neutral Bay

Power play

It has been interesting reading the references back to the lost decade of political leadership under the Liberals as highlighted by Peter Hartcher (“EV power trip’s got some grunt”, July 4). When Holden was seeking its last financial support from the government in 2013 I thought this was an opportunity for the Liberal government to dictate terms that could have led to the development of electric cars in Australia. No surprise that this was hit on the head with the subsequent demise of any Australian-produced car. It is incredible that Indonesian President Joko Widodo has presented Australia with an opportunity to finally grab hold of this global market. Let’s hope it will help further the uptake of electric vehicles in Australia, Indonesia and the global market. Robert Mulas, Corlette

Cupra’s Born EV

Cupra’s Born EV

There may be some advantages to Australia’s slowness in adopting EVs. As an owner of one for some years, I can say that recharging away from home is still a major pain in the neck. Charging stations are often occupied, out of order or simply “incompatible” for some inscrutable electronic reason. Green hydrogen offers a much more petrol-like but still environmentally friendly alternative, and Australians may be better off going straight to that as a power source. John Croker, Woonona

Indonesia has set an example in insisting that its nickel be processed in Indonesia, and Australia must do the same with our lithium. However, it should be appreciated that minerals processing is both energy intensive and potentially polluting, so processing facilities must be designed with considerable responsibility. In collaborating with Indonesia in the potentially enormously lucrative EV manufacture we have the possibility of negotiating a guaranteed supply of good-quality vehicles. This opportunity should be seized. Geoff Harding, Chatswood

Lesser of two evils

The Herald article on vaping bans is spot-on. (“Vaping ban likely to fuel black market”, July 4). As the Australian National Advisory Council on Alcohol and Other Drugs has said, Mark Butler’s plan to double down on vaping prohibition is a slow train wreck.

The unregulated market will continue to sell illegal, dodgy products to children. Butler’s misguided prescription model also reduces access for the people who need vapes most: addicted smokers who are unable to quit. Currently only 8 per cent of vapers source their supplies from legal sources.

Kids should not vape, but the risks are exaggerated. The research now shows that most vaping by adolescents who have never smoked is occasional and short-term, and that vaping is diverting young people away from smoking overall. The only winners from Mark Butler’s plan will be the tobacco companies and the criminal gangs. The loser will be Australian public health.

Colin Mendelsohn, Double Bay

Australia is now awash in cheap, disposable vapes

Australia is now awash in cheap, disposable vapes Credit: Getty Images

Demand for vaping in Australia is strong and growing. So it’s hardly surprising that severely restricting access to legal vaping would spawn a dynamic unregulated market. The inevitable result is that young people have ready access to poor quality, unregulated vaping while adult smokers who badly want to switch to vaping to help quit smoking experience great difficulty. Defenders of Australia’s failed current policy are unable to explain why highly dangerous cigarettes are readily available but much safer vaping is highly restricted. No wonder 73 per cent of the community want vaping regulated like cigarettes, rather than as a medicine. Alex Wodak, Darlinghurst

The joy of Joyce

Would love to see the Nationals bring back Barnaby Joyce as their leader (“Littleproud dismisses talk of leadership threat”, July 4). Of course, it could be that Barnaby would like the extra salary instead of making do with the income of a mere backbencher, but it also guarantees that Labor gets to stay in government for a few extra election cycles, and will always benefit from politicising him as a hilarious distraction. Go for it, I say. Wendy Atkins, Cooks Hill

Blind eyes

Simon Longstaff’s article expressed his concern with politicians being loath to acknowledge that Gladys’ conduct was corrupt (“Disturbing defence of Berejiklian”, July 3). My impression is that most elected politicians within parties would probably routinely observe dubious conduct by some colleagues, but decide it would be political suicide to bring that to the attention of relevant authorities such ICAC. So the attitude is to simply ignore it and over time, this blinds them to the insidious creep of more corrupt conduct. In Berejiklian’s case, this was compounded by the nature of her relationship with Daryl Maguire.

I suspect our political leaders are hesitant to acknowledge her behaviour as they know there is too much within their recent parties’ activities that could similarly trap them or their colleagues. But failing to accept this will come back to bite them, and they can’t say they weren’t warned. Stephen Nicholson, Port Macquarie

Some may put her on a pedestal. But many among us will remember at least two items. The old Powerhouse Museum debacle and the disgraceful destruction of Willow Grove. Well done, Gladys. Tony Saunders, Hunters Hill

I think there is a parallel between Berejiklian and Ben Roberts-Smith. BRS won a VC and should keep it. This does not excuse his subsequent war crimes or protect him from scrutiny or condemnation. Similarly, our ex-premier should be lauded for her management of COVID and her premiership, but equally condemned for her corrupt behaviour. A complete detailing of both individuals’ merits and failings should be recorded and simply acknowledged by the public and politicians with no pile-on or politicking. Rowan Godwin, Rozelle

I agree with Peter Campbell (Letters, July 4) that Matt Kean, Peter Dutton and Joe Hockey are seriously misguided if they think their personal judgments of Gladys Berejiklian override ICAC’s finding that she acted corruptly. It is unacceptable in the corporate, educational, and public service not to declare a conflict of interest if you are partaking in a decision that could benefit a person with whom you have a personal relationship. It is hubris and arrogance for Berejiklian to maintain that this safeguard did not apply to her.
Salvatore Sorbello, Campsie

Training daze

Instead of $30 million of taxpayers’ money being paid to the Millionaire’s Factory (“Bank reaps $30m for advice on line”, July 4), I’m sure Tony Woodford and the National Building Authority could run the Metro West Partnership at a fraction of the cost. Just as long as Tony can keep Jim and Rhonda away from it. Mark Beacom, Beecroft

Bean there

Dear Peter Thornton … I think we have to stop meeting like this, but thanks for the jellybean fix (Letters, July 4). Ann Eskens, Crows Nest

Roll with the punches

Here’s an idea Liarne, organise a “Neighbours-Only Combined Trivia Night, Jumping Castle and Live Music on the Green” event, then if they all turn up there will be no complaints from the neighbours (“Bowlo warned over trivia, jumping castle noise”, July 4). Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook

The article shows what local bowling clubs are up against. In the Ryde/Epping area 10 clubs have folded recently and more may be heading the same way. To remain viable bowling clubs need the support of the controlling boards and understanding of the neighbours to co-exist. No one wants the developers to take control of more local green space. Gerald Erickson, West Ryde

The digital view

Online comment from one of the stories that attracted the most reader feedback yesterday on

Vaping ban likely to fuel black market, drug advisory group fears 

From Felix Qui: “Just because something is harmful, including being addictive, is not a sufficient reason to ban it. If it were, then alcohol would have to be prohibited.”

  • To submit a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald, email 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.

Justin Scaccy

InternetCloning is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button