Dutton tried to make my people political footballs. Australians chose not to play
In the final weeks of the campaign, the opposition doubled down on stoking fear and division, reviving culture-war rhetoric, attacking diversity initiatives, and once again turning Aboriginal people into political targets. They aligned with fringe narratives pushed by groups like Advance Australia and Trumpet of Patriots, who sought to undermine and discredit cultural practices like Welcome to Country.
Dutton appeared to assume that because the country rejected the Voice to parliament, there was a green light to keep attacking Aboriginal people – this time by going after Welcome to Country and other expressions of identity and sovereignty. It might have seemed like a politically advantageous tactic. It wasn't. Australians saw through it.
'It's dividing the country,' Dutton said of the ceremony, which I recently described in this masthead as 'an inclusive protocol, as simple and profound as removing a hat in respect [or] standing silently for an anthem'.
It didn't have to be this way. Australians want leadership with a bold economic vision, focused on uniting people. They want practical solutions: affordable groceries, accessible health care, a path out of the housing crisis. Instead, what they were offered was a campaign that leaned into division and recycled resentment from the 2023 referendum. It was no surprise to me that this approach failed to resonate.
Loading
Coalition Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said on election night that 'if you sling enough mud during the election, it will stick'. But that sentiment overlooks the reality of this campaign. Voters didn't respond to mudslinging against the Coalition. They responded to substance. The strategy of division didn't stick. It backfired.
For many Aboriginal people, this campaign was another exhausting chapter in a long history of being vilified for political gain, treated like political footballs. After campaigning hard against the Voice to parliament, Dutton could have shown some humility or a willingness to listen. Instead, he kept attacking us, our culture, our traditions, our very presence in the national story.
When Dutton announced he would not stand in front of an Aboriginal flag if elected prime minister, Australians noticed. They rejected the idea that the nation's First Peoples are the problem. They voted for leadership grounded in values, not vendettas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
8 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
‘They think it is their win forever': Younger Aussie voters leaning left
On tonight's episode of Paul Murray Live, Sky News host Paul Murray discusses young Australians leaning left, cost of living, US politics and more. 'Of course, there are many divisions between all different types of people in the country but we know when it comes to elections there is a pretty prominent difference between how the young voters see Australia and how older voters,' Mr Murray said. 'Basically, half of the country under the age of 50, half over, and the left after particularly a big win … they think it is their win forever.'
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Can pensioners really be 'wealthy'? One economist reckons they are
The attacks on Baby Boomers, labelling them as "wealthy" to the detriment of "families and young people" just because their home has increased in value, needs to stop. Brendan Coates, an economist with the Grattan Institute, was given a soap box on July 24 to air concerns "wealthy pensioners" should be penalised to benefit the rest of Australian society. Perhaps Brendan forgets people over the age of 65 are also valued members of society, and if they're eligible for the age pension (the current base payment being $27,333 a year for singles and $41,210 for couples, before tax is taken out) it's because they are just scraping by. Compulsory super only began in 1992 at 3 per cent, whereas Brendan enjoys 12 per cent as of July 1. The age pension is below minimum wage, and far below the wage of an economist (in excess of $100,000 according to "[Retirees] can be in Potts Point or Toorak with a $5m house and receive the same pension that a person in a $500,000 unit in Bendigo or Bathurst is receiving," he is quoted as saying in the Australian Financial Review. "People with substantial wealth are receiving the pension who arguably don't need it." Read more from The Senior: Mr Coates believes a retiree's family home (regardless if they bought it 40 years ago for next to nothing, then for the pandemic to jack up the land value) should be included in the pension assets test to better help "those who need it". But Brendan isn't a fan of retirees with superannuation either. A Grattan Institute report by Brendan Coates, released a day after his quotes around "wealthy pensioners", ironically called for more tax on superannuation funds. Not sure about you Brendan, but my grandparents on the Gold Coast have lived far longer than they expected and are now living day to day, as their meagre super dwindled to nothing. Pensioners and self-funded retirees are being slammed every which way as the "cash cows" of society, that should be pushed out of their homes - "and downsize" - to make way for a seemingly more important demographic: anyone under the age of 50. In 2025, around 58 per cent of Australians aged over 65 (around 2.4 million people) receive either the full or part age pension. But why would someone not have enough super to retire on comfortably? Compulsory super only came into play 30 years ago (around 10 years after Brendan Coates was born). "While Australians have reason to feel proud of the success of Australia's superannuation system ... the need for review, refinement and reform continues. An example is the retirement savings of Australian women," the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority states on their website. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. The 2021 Census reported a 6.6 per cent increase to women over 55 experiencing homelessness. Divorce and lack of super (due to raising children) are a big factor. Banks also won't give older people a loan for a home and rents have skyrocketed. The Superannuation Guarantee, with a mandatory three per cent contribution rate for employers came into effect in 1992 - nearly 20 years after reader of The Senior Suzanne G finished high school. "As a woman of 67 soon 68 ... back in 1974 when I finished school there was no superannuation," the retired pensioner told The Senior. She said she's worked all her life, owns her own home, and had a "meagre private super" which was cashed in some years ago to complete home renovations. The 1980s was the birth of superannuation for Aussies, but in the beginning, it was generally limited to public servants and white collar employees of large corporations. It was only in 2003 that provisions came in to allow the splitting of superannuation between divorcing or separating spouses, while 2007 saw investment losses for Australian superannuation funds of more than $200 billion thanks to the global financial crisis (GFC). The other flipside to all this: is if an older person does want to keep working they are either financially penalised (if they're on the age pension) or they're discriminated against by employers (according to the research by the Human Rights Commission and Australian Human Resources Institute). Who's with me and standing up for the rights of our wise elders? Retirees are humans too, with basic needs like anyone else. It's time the generations before them showed some respect. Share your comments below if you agree ... or disagree ... The attacks on Baby Boomers, labelling them as "wealthy" to the detriment of "families and young people" just because their home has increased in value, needs to stop. Brendan Coates, an economist with the Grattan Institute, was given a soap box on July 24 to air concerns "wealthy pensioners" should be penalised to benefit the rest of Australian society. Perhaps Brendan forgets people over the age of 65 are also valued members of society, and if they're eligible for the age pension (the current base payment being $27,333 a year for singles and $41,210 for couples, before tax is taken out) it's because they are just scraping by. Compulsory super only began in 1992 at 3 per cent, whereas Brendan enjoys 12 per cent as of July 1. The age pension is below minimum wage, and far below the wage of an economist (in excess of $100,000 according to "[Retirees] can be in Potts Point or Toorak with a $5m house and receive the same pension that a person in a $500,000 unit in Bendigo or Bathurst is receiving," he is quoted as saying in the Australian Financial Review. "People with substantial wealth are receiving the pension who arguably don't need it." Read more from The Senior: Mr Coates believes a retiree's family home (regardless if they bought it 40 years ago for next to nothing, then for the pandemic to jack up the land value) should be included in the pension assets test to better help "those who need it". But Brendan isn't a fan of retirees with superannuation either. A Grattan Institute report by Brendan Coates, released a day after his quotes around "wealthy pensioners", ironically called for more tax on superannuation funds. Not sure about you Brendan, but my grandparents on the Gold Coast have lived far longer than they expected and are now living day to day, as their meagre super dwindled to nothing. Pensioners and self-funded retirees are being slammed every which way as the "cash cows" of society, that should be pushed out of their homes - "and downsize" - to make way for a seemingly more important demographic: anyone under the age of 50. In 2025, around 58 per cent of Australians aged over 65 (around 2.4 million people) receive either the full or part age pension. But why would someone not have enough super to retire on comfortably? Compulsory super only came into play 30 years ago (around 10 years after Brendan Coates was born). "While Australians have reason to feel proud of the success of Australia's superannuation system ... the need for review, refinement and reform continues. An example is the retirement savings of Australian women," the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority states on their website. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. The 2021 Census reported a 6.6 per cent increase to women over 55 experiencing homelessness. Divorce and lack of super (due to raising children) are a big factor. Banks also won't give older people a loan for a home and rents have skyrocketed. The Superannuation Guarantee, with a mandatory three per cent contribution rate for employers came into effect in 1992 - nearly 20 years after reader of The Senior Suzanne G finished high school. "As a woman of 67 soon 68 ... back in 1974 when I finished school there was no superannuation," the retired pensioner told The Senior. She said she's worked all her life, owns her own home, and had a "meagre private super" which was cashed in some years ago to complete home renovations. The 1980s was the birth of superannuation for Aussies, but in the beginning, it was generally limited to public servants and white collar employees of large corporations. It was only in 2003 that provisions came in to allow the splitting of superannuation between divorcing or separating spouses, while 2007 saw investment losses for Australian superannuation funds of more than $200 billion thanks to the global financial crisis (GFC). The other flipside to all this: is if an older person does want to keep working they are either financially penalised (if they're on the age pension) or they're discriminated against by employers (according to the research by the Human Rights Commission and Australian Human Resources Institute). Who's with me and standing up for the rights of our wise elders? Retirees are humans too, with basic needs like anyone else. It's time the generations before them showed some respect. Share your comments below if you agree ... or disagree ... The attacks on Baby Boomers, labelling them as "wealthy" to the detriment of "families and young people" just because their home has increased in value, needs to stop. Brendan Coates, an economist with the Grattan Institute, was given a soap box on July 24 to air concerns "wealthy pensioners" should be penalised to benefit the rest of Australian society. Perhaps Brendan forgets people over the age of 65 are also valued members of society, and if they're eligible for the age pension (the current base payment being $27,333 a year for singles and $41,210 for couples, before tax is taken out) it's because they are just scraping by. Compulsory super only began in 1992 at 3 per cent, whereas Brendan enjoys 12 per cent as of July 1. The age pension is below minimum wage, and far below the wage of an economist (in excess of $100,000 according to "[Retirees] can be in Potts Point or Toorak with a $5m house and receive the same pension that a person in a $500,000 unit in Bendigo or Bathurst is receiving," he is quoted as saying in the Australian Financial Review. "People with substantial wealth are receiving the pension who arguably don't need it." Read more from The Senior: Mr Coates believes a retiree's family home (regardless if they bought it 40 years ago for next to nothing, then for the pandemic to jack up the land value) should be included in the pension assets test to better help "those who need it". But Brendan isn't a fan of retirees with superannuation either. A Grattan Institute report by Brendan Coates, released a day after his quotes around "wealthy pensioners", ironically called for more tax on superannuation funds. Not sure about you Brendan, but my grandparents on the Gold Coast have lived far longer than they expected and are now living day to day, as their meagre super dwindled to nothing. Pensioners and self-funded retirees are being slammed every which way as the "cash cows" of society, that should be pushed out of their homes - "and downsize" - to make way for a seemingly more important demographic: anyone under the age of 50. In 2025, around 58 per cent of Australians aged over 65 (around 2.4 million people) receive either the full or part age pension. But why would someone not have enough super to retire on comfortably? Compulsory super only came into play 30 years ago (around 10 years after Brendan Coates was born). "While Australians have reason to feel proud of the success of Australia's superannuation system ... the need for review, refinement and reform continues. An example is the retirement savings of Australian women," the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority states on their website. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. The 2021 Census reported a 6.6 per cent increase to women over 55 experiencing homelessness. Divorce and lack of super (due to raising children) are a big factor. Banks also won't give older people a loan for a home and rents have skyrocketed. The Superannuation Guarantee, with a mandatory three per cent contribution rate for employers came into effect in 1992 - nearly 20 years after reader of The Senior Suzanne G finished high school. "As a woman of 67 soon 68 ... back in 1974 when I finished school there was no superannuation," the retired pensioner told The Senior. She said she's worked all her life, owns her own home, and had a "meagre private super" which was cashed in some years ago to complete home renovations. The 1980s was the birth of superannuation for Aussies, but in the beginning, it was generally limited to public servants and white collar employees of large corporations. It was only in 2003 that provisions came in to allow the splitting of superannuation between divorcing or separating spouses, while 2007 saw investment losses for Australian superannuation funds of more than $200 billion thanks to the global financial crisis (GFC). The other flipside to all this: is if an older person does want to keep working they are either financially penalised (if they're on the age pension) or they're discriminated against by employers (according to the research by the Human Rights Commission and Australian Human Resources Institute). Who's with me and standing up for the rights of our wise elders? Retirees are humans too, with basic needs like anyone else. It's time the generations before them showed some respect. Share your comments below if you agree ... or disagree ... The attacks on Baby Boomers, labelling them as "wealthy" to the detriment of "families and young people" just because their home has increased in value, needs to stop. Brendan Coates, an economist with the Grattan Institute, was given a soap box on July 24 to air concerns "wealthy pensioners" should be penalised to benefit the rest of Australian society. Perhaps Brendan forgets people over the age of 65 are also valued members of society, and if they're eligible for the age pension (the current base payment being $27,333 a year for singles and $41,210 for couples, before tax is taken out) it's because they are just scraping by. Compulsory super only began in 1992 at 3 per cent, whereas Brendan enjoys 12 per cent as of July 1. The age pension is below minimum wage, and far below the wage of an economist (in excess of $100,000 according to "[Retirees] can be in Potts Point or Toorak with a $5m house and receive the same pension that a person in a $500,000 unit in Bendigo or Bathurst is receiving," he is quoted as saying in the Australian Financial Review. "People with substantial wealth are receiving the pension who arguably don't need it." Read more from The Senior: Mr Coates believes a retiree's family home (regardless if they bought it 40 years ago for next to nothing, then for the pandemic to jack up the land value) should be included in the pension assets test to better help "those who need it". But Brendan isn't a fan of retirees with superannuation either. A Grattan Institute report by Brendan Coates, released a day after his quotes around "wealthy pensioners", ironically called for more tax on superannuation funds. Not sure about you Brendan, but my grandparents on the Gold Coast have lived far longer than they expected and are now living day to day, as their meagre super dwindled to nothing. Pensioners and self-funded retirees are being slammed every which way as the "cash cows" of society, that should be pushed out of their homes - "and downsize" - to make way for a seemingly more important demographic: anyone under the age of 50. In 2025, around 58 per cent of Australians aged over 65 (around 2.4 million people) receive either the full or part age pension. But why would someone not have enough super to retire on comfortably? Compulsory super only came into play 30 years ago (around 10 years after Brendan Coates was born). "While Australians have reason to feel proud of the success of Australia's superannuation system ... the need for review, refinement and reform continues. An example is the retirement savings of Australian women," the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority states on their website. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. The 2021 Census reported a 6.6 per cent increase to women over 55 experiencing homelessness. Divorce and lack of super (due to raising children) are a big factor. Banks also won't give older people a loan for a home and rents have skyrocketed. The Superannuation Guarantee, with a mandatory three per cent contribution rate for employers came into effect in 1992 - nearly 20 years after reader of The Senior Suzanne G finished high school. "As a woman of 67 soon 68 ... back in 1974 when I finished school there was no superannuation," the retired pensioner told The Senior. She said she's worked all her life, owns her own home, and had a "meagre private super" which was cashed in some years ago to complete home renovations. The 1980s was the birth of superannuation for Aussies, but in the beginning, it was generally limited to public servants and white collar employees of large corporations. It was only in 2003 that provisions came in to allow the splitting of superannuation between divorcing or separating spouses, while 2007 saw investment losses for Australian superannuation funds of more than $200 billion thanks to the global financial crisis (GFC). The other flipside to all this: is if an older person does want to keep working they are either financially penalised (if they're on the age pension) or they're discriminated against by employers (according to the research by the Human Rights Commission and Australian Human Resources Institute). Who's with me and standing up for the rights of our wise elders? Retirees are humans too, with basic needs like anyone else. It's time the generations before them showed some respect. Share your comments below if you agree ... or disagree ...
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Let's march for Gaza, and don't forget the hostages
The right to protest is a democratic freedom we must protect (' MPs slam Minns over march fight ', July 30) while the starvation of Gazans is a crime against humanity. These two issues come together in the proposed controversial march across Sydney Harbour Bridge. Perhaps this march might be less divisive if the protest organisers also demanded that Hamas release the remaining Israeli hostages, whose continued detention is also a crime against humanity. Rob Phillips, North Epping Last week, aged over 60, I took part in my first protest march, as I could not sit at home any longer preparing dinner and listening to the dreadful reports about the situation in Gaza and the starving children. I wanted to do something. I was slightly nervous, as I wasn't sure what to expect, but found everyone very gracious and welcoming, not in a politically motivated way, just thankful. The demographic was very mixed across races and ages, as we all feel the same as members of the human race and cannot stand by while others are suffering so appallingly. There were far too many police, who had nothing to do but guide us around and it was extremely peaceful. I was pleased to have taken part; there was a great feeling of camaraderie among like-minded people. This whole Minns v Josh Lees controversy is just a distraction and creating anxiety, inventing an idea of there being a threat of violence while this is a peaceful collection of people who want the violence to stop. I am not an extremist, just a mother who could not stand by watching other mothers holding their dying, starving children. Sometimes, as Greens MP Sue Higginson describes Lees, a justice warrior is what is required to motivate others. I am not anti-anyone or particularly pro-anyone; I just feel very saddened by this situation and hope to march across the bridge this Sunday. Sarah Gatliff, Avalon Premier Chris Minns says he won't let Sydney 'descend into chaos' by allowing a protest on the Harbour Bridge. But chaos is not thousands of people marching peacefully to stop a genocide. Chaos is Gaza – where children are starving, hospitals are bombed, while the world keeps watching. The bridge has been closed before. For World Pride. For reconciliation. Even for a Ryan Gosling movie shoot. But not, apparently, for a mass demonstration against one of the most horrific humanitarian crises of our time. What does that say about our priorities? If there's no room for protest on the bridge, is there room anywhere? Or are Palestinians to be starved into silence while Australians are policed into passivity? A march for humanity is not a threat to safety. It's democracy in motion – imperfect, urgent, necessary – insisting that law serves life. Let them march. Fernanda Trecenti, Fitzroy (Vic) In 2000, 250,000 people walked across Sydney Harbour Bridge supporting reconciliation and the rights of Indigenous Australians. Unfortunately, not much has changed for the better since, but at least disruption of traffic was not considered a reason to prohibit that historic march. One can only wonder why it's a major stumbling block in 2025. Ross Duncan, Potts Point I've never marched in a political rally in my life, but I am seriously considering marching this weekend. Please don't call me antisemitic – it's been overused and doesn't work any more. I do not want to take sides, but the violence and inhumanity in Gaza has to stop. Dick Barker, Epping These people wishing to disrupt traffic on Sydney Harbour Bridge do not help the situation in any way, and their protests and demonstrations will not be heard at the location of the actions. Hold a gathering in a park but don't close down busy thoroughfares. If they chartered a couple of 747s and went to the location, their voices would be heard. Australia cannot do anything from here. Ron Field, Bermagui Acting Deputy Commissioner Peter McKenna says the march will block firefighters, police and ambulances from crossing the bridge for six hours. Has he not heard of the Harbour Tunnel? This is what Sydney traffic will be using at the end of August when the bridge is closed for eight hours to accommodate the Sydney marathon. Mike Kenneally, Manly I walked to protest against the Vietnam War and I will protest again because it is the right thing to do when children are starving to death. Take note, Premier Minns. Zuzu Burford, Heathcote I am an 83-year-old woman still grieving the loss of my beloved husband little more than a year ago. My grief has been a turbulent journey, but I cannot even begin to comprehend the communal weight of grief felt by the Palestinian people. I can hardly bring myself to read or watch the images coming out of Gaza today. The world cannot continue to ignore the plight of these starving people, and although there is little that I personally can do, I will be marching on Sunday in protest. Premier Minns says we cannot inconvenience people, but I am prepared to do just that to try to help highlight the fact that our government needs to recognise a state of Palestine. Surely it is time for actions rather than simply words. Jan Bohan, Eastwood While the concern about creating chaos by holding a march across the Harbour Bridge has merit, of overwhelming and overriding concern is the situation in Gaza. Granted, one march over our beloved Coathanger won't stop Israel's persecution of the Palestinians in Gaza, but it's sure to draw greater worldwide attention to the plight of a people whose lands were dispossessed, whose culture is being destroyed, and whose existence is being threatened by what has now been agreed is nothing short of genocide. Frederick Jansohn, Rose Bay Recognise renters The federal opposition doesn't seem to realise that there is a housing crisis in their desire to disallow regulations for the proposed government build-to-rent program (' Coalition to attack Labor on housing ', July 30). For many people who are priced out of the housing market, renting is the only option, most likely for the rest of their lives, and so it makes sense for the government to increase the supply of rental properties with this scheme, where 8000 of these dwellings will be allocated as affordable. Leo Sorbello, Leichhardt Opposite of trust David Crowe asks if the world can trust Donald Trump (' Can we trust president's bluster on anything?' , July 30). Well, let's see – he is a cheat, a compulsive liar, a convicted felon, and he exhibits the characteristics of a malignant narcissist and a sociopath. He has no respect for law and order and is arguably the most corrupt US president ever. Of course the world can't well trust him. Graham Lum, North Rocks Can the world trust Trump? In a word, no. Paul Fergus, Croydon Productivity has pros and cons Ross Gittins (' We don't work just for more stuff ', July 30) has provided another insightful and helpful demystification of the world of economics, this time around productivity. However, while I agree that work is about much more than material wealth, the problem for today's workers is that their income is not seen to be keeping up with living standards, let alone providing the wherewithal for aspiration. For the government, the problem is productivity equals taxes. Without an increase in GDP, the government will need to raise taxes to continue providing the services that support dignity and social cohesion. Like Gittins, I would like to see Australians living in contentment rather than chasing the mirage of materialism. Philip Cooney, Wentworth Falls Ross Gittins has hit on the weak point in the government's obsession with higher productivity. This higher productivity will, in theory, improve the standard of living for all, as well as, no doubt, increase tax earnings. In this lucky country, is this higher standard necessary? A high standard of living is environmentally destructive as people consume more carbon-intensive goods and fly more frequently. The poorest people in the world have the lowest carbon footprints. However, if one considers the average standard of living in Australia, there is certainly one way it can be increased. It is unacceptable that a significant number of Australians live in relative poverty, some with food insecurity. Far more needs to be done to improve their welfare – without this unconscionable stain, our average standard of living will increase, and we will be better off. Geoff Harding, Chatswood Thank you, Ross Gittins. I've been wondering what this 'productivity' thing was, but have been afraid to ask for fear of trolling. I have the luxury of being retired but agree that a satisfying job with reasonable and fair employers is what I wanted, and agree that most people would too. The lack of this pushed me to retire earlier rather than later. Fiona Hainepettet, Pullenvale (Qld) One factor Gittins misses is 'envy'. Most of us will be happy with our productivity and lifestyle but unfortunately we are envious of others' earning and possessions, something that the economic structure capitalises upon through glitzy marketing and the constant upgrading of products. We can satisfy our envy by constantly feeding it, and more and more growth in productivity lubricates the endless spiral that can only lead our lives and planet into a sinkhole. Manbir Singh Kohli, Pemulwuy Degree costs are a scandal As someone who did an arts degree by correspondence many years ago when it was free, I was shocked to read that there is not just one fee for such a degree but rather it is determined by the subjects that you choose within that degree (' Fee schedule for arts degrees is all ancient Greek to me ', July 30). What type of government interfering is this? It's just another stuff-up by the then Morrison government – the current government should bring university degrees back to ones that are earned at a reasonable cost, and not try to engineer what choices you have within that degree. Ken Pares, Forster Thank you, Saria Ratham, for explaining in dollars and cents the workings of Scott Morrison's Job Ready policy, manipulating our next generation of leaders to learn what to think, not how to think. Richard Holliday, Cremorne Beauty of e-bikes E-bikes make undeniable sense (' E-bike-to-work incentive makes perfect sense ', July 30), not just for reducing traffic congestion, cutting emissions and improving health but for convenience. I ride my e-bike for errands and appreciate being able to park outside the shop or business I'm visiting. The proposal to financially support cycling to work is the kind of forward-thinking policy NSW needs. With more than a million e-bike and e-scooter owners in the state, and a third of central Sydney residents already onboard, the uptake is clear. Paying commuters to switch to e-bikes, through per-kilometre allowances or one-off purchase rebates, would not only ease pressure on our public transport system but also support a broader shift towards sustainable commuting. Of course, challenges remain. More dedicated bike paths and enforcement of basic safety rules - especially helmet use - are essential. Riders who flout traffic laws should be fined. All it takes is political will and a commitment to a cleaner, healthier and more productive future. John Kempler, Rose Bay Food for thought I couldn't help laughing at the notion that making food into medicine was something new and a breakthrough (' Fries that work like Ozempic in push for medicines you can eat ', July 30) when all along unadulterated foods have been that – healing and medicinal – until bastardised by processing and additives. It was Hippocrates who said, 'Our food should be our medicine and our medicine be our food.' It is not rocket science. Gordana Martinovich, Dulwich Hill Just breathe Your correspondent is correct in saying nose-breathing is a good thing and should be explained to all children and adults alike (Letters, July 30). As a physio, I understand why and advise my clients to use 'in through the nose, out through the mouth' breathing, especially when out and about. It cuts down the likelihood of picking up the products of those coughing and sneezing nearby, as the nose has fine 'filters' in its lining which the mouth doesn't. Nose breathing deeply also benefits the lungs. Dorothy Gliksman, Cedar Brush Creek We need good news I fully support your correspondents' calls (Letters, July 30) for more good news. Perhaps the first four, even six pages should contain stories about achievements, discoveries, kindliness, the niceness of the national and international world. Readers could start their day in good humour, then skip over the nasties and go straight to the Letters and Column 8, and then on to the puzzles for some mental stimulation, perhaps first checking that they do not appear in the funeral notices. Graham Carter, Eglinton (WA)
