The Guardian 15 February, 2006
Readers are invited to submit letters to The Guardian.
Letters may be e-mailed to guardian@cpa.org.au, or posted to:
The Guardian, 74 Buckingham Street, Surry Hills NSW 2010, Australia.
Letters of 300-400 words are preferred.
Letters to the Editor
Abbott's arguments don't wash
I don't really appreciate Mr Abbott's reaction to the latest developments in the approval of a
medical drug. Why on earth he should he be the sole decider on whether it should be used? Why
shouldn't it be the professionals who are entrusted to do it for all other drugs? It is beyond
me.
To say that if the power to decide on the drug's availability is taken from him it would be an
expression of no confidence in him as a health minister is not very logical, to say the
least.
I would put the question in a different way. A lot of people opposing the drug use the argument that
it is dangerous without a doctor's supervision, especially in the bush where in some areas there are
no doctors. Whose responsibility is it to make sure that there are enough doctors and medical
services in the bush (and other places for that matter) if not the Minister for Health? Whose
responsibility is it to make sure that health services are not only up to scratch but befit a developed
country with a good economy?
Has the present Minister for Health sorted out the shortage of doctors and nurses? Have new funds
been allocated to medical research and development? Will the Minister produce a track record to
show what has been done (or not done) in the ten years that the Coalition Government has been in
power?
As for the assertion that the Senators had voted the way they did because Mr Abbott was a
Catholic — as a letter writer in The Age pointed out, "Tony Abbott should remember he is
being paid by the Australian taxpayer, not the Vatican". Good point.
Sophie M
Port Adelaide
Glow in the dark camouflage
Could we possibly find out who were those clowns who had ordered "glow-in-the-dark" flack jackets
for the Australian troops in Iraq? I bet some nice outsourcing was involved.
Of course, no minister will be taking the blame. Robert Hill is retired, Brendan Nelson is new to the
job. Alexander Downer did not even know about the wheat scandal. John Howard seems to be
more interested in a witch hunt as to who's behind the T-shirt Greens Senator Kerry Nettle is
wearing.
The T-shirt's slogan, "Take your rosaries off my ovaries", is a vintage one which most unfortunately
is still applicable. There are other vintage slogans: "Bring the troops home", "No blood for oil",
"Peace now", and many more. Let's have a good discussion about them as well.
J W Smith
Sydney, NSW
US budget obscene
"Obscene" is the only word I can think of when reading about the US budget and what it is going to
be spent on.
Cutbacks to the sick, the young and the elderly and a boost to the military is the main objective.
The budget of $3.59 trillion will see $585 billion spent on defence — and that's not including the
money for the military in Iraq and Afghanistan which amounts to $66 billion. Judging by what has
already been spent (or wasted) in the two countries it is very likely that the real costs there will be
much higher.
Mr Bush declared the aim of the budget is to protect America's security. Might be a better option to
provide for the American people instead of interfering into other people's affairs and trying to run
the world. The US military objective seems to be an engagement in a permanent war. It is
interesting to note that in a US Defence Department review a new concept has appeared — instead
of "soldiers" the word "war fighters" is used. Sounds like a firm contracted to provide personnel for
any spot in the world.
Sad thing is, no matter what you call it, the people on the front line will have to come back to their
own country — sometimes in body bags, sometimes crippled and damaged. Then what happens?
Where is the money to look after them after all the patriotic songs have stopped
playing?
They'll be the ones to be denied proper health care and when they get older (some of them will)
there may not be any welfare support for them.
You may ask why the American budget should worry us here. Many reasons why but the one that
may directly affect Australia is the US push to farm out some of the costs. The US Defence officials
have already been quoted as saying that Australia should increase its military spending. There is
talk of conscription, Australian troops are being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.
As in the case of the USA budget, the more money goes into the military, the more money is being
cut from the public services. And the talk of a perpetual war is just an excuse for the military-
industrial corporations to get rich at the expense of everybody else. It does not provide either
security, nor meaningful and useful work.
Olga S
Surry Hills, NSW