Letters to the Editor

Have Your SaySuper pick
Editor,
Please allow the Public Service to have a choice of fund (Super fund revises option rules, 10 May 2012).

Lisa M
Education
Defining ourselves
Editor,
I have no problem with the political correctness of the terms “carer” or “spouse” or “partner” (Language of officialdom devalues ties with those we love and care for most, Talking Point 16 April
2012).
   However, I think an individual is entitled to define themselves in relation to their actual situation.
   I always refer to someone’s “partner” if I am not aware of their situation, however, I happen to have a husband and that’s how I refer to him.
   I don’t think the term is exclusive and if a man has a “husband” or a woman has a “wife” and they want to use those terms, they should.
   My mother was recently recognised as being my father’s [her husband’s] “carer”.
   To her this was a positive recognition of everything she does for him. But she remains his wife.
   Frank’s article is thought provoking.

Karen T
Attorney-General’s
In previous editions... Teachers testy
Editor
I would like to know if all politicians are required to go through a similar yearly performance assessment? (Teachers to pass annual tests, 1 May 2012).
   If not, why not as it is they who have implemented this assessment on teachers?
   How do teachers in lower academic and socioeconomic schools pass such assessments and have the same opportunities as teachers in higher achieving schools?
   How do teachers who have a personality clash with their principal pass these assessments?
   I am not a teacher but based on the claim Mr Garret states “that teaching is a very important role in our communities” I would assume they should be paid in accordance with many other professional positions in our society (but they aren’t).
   I think teaching is a very important role and needs a much higher profile and status recognition than currently exists.

A
Industry NSW
Editor,
Fantastic idea! (Teachers to pass annual tests,1 May 2012).
   Nurses have been having to complete annual Professional Review and Development activities for years.
   It will help acknowledge the best and put a stick of dynamite up the rest.

Matthew R
Health
South Australia
Drink drive data down
Editor,
I am very open to harsher penalties for “driving whilst impaired” but there was no data in this article that would support the recommendation to lower the BAC requirement to .03% (Is a drink driving killing murder?, Talking Point, 1 May 2102).
   I would like to see the statistics for people with .04/5% before applying a potentially ineffectual mitigation measure which may just result in prosecuting vast amounts of innocent people for merely having a glass of wine with dinner.
   I would also note that the BAC threshold in both the UK the USA is currently at .08%.

C
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
Editor,
William Sproul’s article on drink driving (Is a drink driving killing murder?, Talking Point, 1 May 2102) suffers from not examining its social context.
   Most people in Australia live in situations where they are compelled to drive. This means that crimes committed at the wheel of a car are treated by society as a whole as being “different” from crimes committed in other circumstances.
   Virtually all adults, and not a few minors, are licensed to operate one of the world’s most dangerous pieces of machinery and access is rarely withdrawn, because society couldn’t function if it was.
   What we need is a comprehensive public transport system, including rural buses and a network in the outer suburbs as well as the traditional inner suburban areas, to give everyone a practical non-driving option for the journey they need to make.
   Apart from the benefits usually cited, it would reduce drink-driving, take many disqualified drivers off the road and make it more practical to set appropriately high standards for driver’s licences that at present are virtually distributed in boxes of breakfast cereal.
   Deaths from drink-driving are just the tip of the iceberg.
   The larger problem is the extent of society’s dependence on the private car.

Greg P
Bureau of Statistics
Straight talking
Editor,
I absolutely love this article! (Raising boys who play with dolls, Features, 23 April 2012).
   I am a gay man and I had similar experiences when I was 8 and told my Mum that I wanted earrings.
   “Earrings are for girls! Are you a girl?”
   Well I ended up getting all the earrings I could once I was legal!
   I have male friends in “female” dominated roles... first question is always “are they gay?” It is assumed that if a boy does not do “boy” things then he is gay.
   It must be really hard for those guys to constantly have to prove themselves as straight males.

D
Medicare Australia
Drugs article misses mark
Editor,
I really enjoy the PS News but I hope never to read another article which talks such utter nonsense ever again (The decriminalisation (or even legalisation) of drugs, Talking Point, 5 March 2012).
   I seriously hope you never print anything like this again.
   Drugs are for Mugs (or idiots).
   I also trust that anyone who writes rubbish like this is never associated with young people.

Diane B
Courts Administration Authority
South Australia
Train probe on time
Editor,
It's about time that Queensland's rail network is overhauled (TMR gets carriage of railway audit, 19 April 2012).
   Compared to the rail system in European cities, Queensland is a joke.
   Trains are dirty, packed and there's always something wrong with the signal system or trips on overhead wires, etc.
   Why can't these things be prevented from happening?
   They just keep on apologising whenever trains are delayed.
   They might as well have a recorded message.

A
Transport and Main Roads
Featured bias
Editor,
This was a fairly bizarre article to be including in PS News (Bewailing Wikipedia’s white male bias, Features, 17 April 2012)
   Some of the claims are fairly extreme and inflammatory and are unworthy of them being republished here.
   As with most opinions or claims, there are elements within them that are likely to be reasonable and worthy of further reasoned discussion. But some of the points are so extreme as to make them unworthy to be republished by a reputable organisation.
   Not that anyone should be banned from sharing their opinion - but that doesn’t mean reputable organisation’s need to necessarily facilitate all and every opinion no matter how extreme it is.
   So what was extreme about the article?
   Firstly it seems to have a strong anti-white male agenda/perspective.
   Would it be OK to publish an article that was strongly anti-white female or strongly anti-black male?
   If the answer is ‘yes’ then publishing this article as you have is perfectly acceptable.
   If the answer is instead no, then this is clearly a case of prejudice in publishing this article.
   The article makes a number of assertions about differences between white males and black males - for instance in relation to murder rates.
   With the underlying tone that the reason for the differences is that they are different races and treated differently.
   Most people would recognise that this overwhelmingly is a misrepresentation of a far more complex issue.
   Finally the article makes a number of assertions about a recent high-profile shooting case in Florida, and the State’s ‘Stand your ground’ laws.
   Firstly the article incorrectly categorises Trayvon Martin’s killer as a “white man”, when in fact he is biracial Hispanic (according to Wikipedia, ironically). Under the author’s terminology we could describe almost anyone as white - President Obama for instance.
   To categorise the laws as being created to validate white men’s irrational and murderous fear of black men is absolutely repulsive.
   For a start there are reasonable cases to be made both for and against self-defence laws. But to turn it into some sort of racial war is beyond bizarre and unbelievably defamatory.
   I mean imagine if the author had swapped the words white and black around throughout the article. They could very well end up in court if that was the case (not that I would support such a vile attack on free speech, no matter how repulsive that speech).
   The bottom line is that the piece comes across as nothing more than a first-year university level rant against white-male privilege.
   Unfortunately there are issues within the piece that are important and could be debated reasonably.
   It is a shame that PS News chose to republish this amateur effort instead.

J
Treasury and Finance,
Victoria
print
pdf
Email a friend



Click to visit the PSshop
Next