Major questions facing Australia and the West
It is a pretty searching question, right? Both for Americans and for those like Britain and Australia who are proudly America-adjacent.
The words, however, are not mine.
Rather, they belong to an erstwhile Conservative British prime minister, Sir John Major, who delivered a searing 2025 Sir Edward Heath Lecture last week. Ted Heath, too, had been a Conservative PM.
Sir John used the occasion to pose what might be the "major" question for this terrifying historical crux.
How so? I'd wager that the answer to Sir Major's ostensibly narrow question provides an answer to a much wider set of tests going to how resolutely liberal democracy stands against the resurgent competition - populist authoritarianism, military aggression, nativism and "barbarism".
That is to say, what you think about axing USAID operates as a surrogate marker for a deeper public shift in which the citizens of nominal democracies seem prepared to give up on the civilisation project imperfectly pursued since WWII, quietly surrendering values like diplomacy and rules and the concept of universal human dignity.
In his address, Sir Major quantified what sitting prime ministers in his country and ours, steadfastly avoid - the fast-widening gap between what we say we stand for in the West, and what we will stay silent on to ensure smooth relations and serve political self-interest, even in instances of racism and the denial of human rights.
Individually as voters, and officially through our governments, our response to Sir Major's question goes a long way towards explaining the rise and burgeoning confidence of lawless bullies like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Vladimir Putin.
In this, the age of impunity, Sir Major invites us to consider whether we are different from Trump's Americans or merely distant.
For example, if you were unmoved by the epic callousness of his administration's new assault on the least fortunate - its "One Big Beautiful Bill" of tax breaks for billionaires while cutting welfare, you had probably been fine with the earlier closing of USAID.
Unperturbed, still, as USAID's shuttering brought credible predictions of countless preventable deaths (climbing into the millions) - many of them children - in the world's most wretched, war-ravaged regions.
Musk's cheery chainsaw massacre of USAID - the leading global provider of foreign development assistance, including clean water, healthcare, and vaccination against lethal diseases - thrusts him and the toxic administration he served onto the moral trajectory of history's more lethal.
The West's response? Silence. Worse, fawning praise, undignified crawling, pre-emptive capitulations, gushing obedience. Yes, we will spend more on defence, Trump is assured, guaranteeing (by the way) that we, too, must cut foreign aid budgets, and even welfare programs at home.
MORE MARK KENNY:
Sir Major followed his rhetorical question with several more.
"Is barbarianism now acceptable if the barbarian is strong enough, or the victim without friends?" he asked.
"Can it be that our world is so exhausted, politics so tainted, self-interest so predominant that it has abandoned compassion?
"Is might now right? Has the law, human decency, and political morality been cast aside?
"Or is it, perhaps, as simple as this: that our world is now beginning to elect leaders concerned only about national self-interest?
"If so, if politics leads countries to hunker down in their own little trenches of interest, ignore reason, bypass diplomacy, forego enlightened self-interest - then heaven help us all."
Heaven, indeed. It is galling to witness the stunning overlap of people who simultaneously hold to Heaven as a core belief, while actively denying the most fundamental point of Jesus Christ's example: his life stood for nothing if not for care, compassion and respect for the poor, the sick, those cast out to the peripheries.
Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" is a vulgar billionaire's thumb in Christ's eye.
Along with pumping billions into his deportation program, it slashes funds for things as basic as food safety-net programs, green energy, and healthcare, while cementing stonking tax cuts for the mega-wealthy.
This is the country with which Australia shares so many values?
The country that breaks international law without hesitation and re-drafts a felonious former president who had fomented a violent denial of his election loss.
A president who openly uses high office for self-enrichment, vilifies migrants as rapists and murderers, deploys his country's military against political opponents, and commits nearly three times as many dollars to its Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation police than to the FBI.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had decried Trump's immigration agents "parading around masked in unmarked cars and snatching hardworking people off the streets ... just to meet indiscriminate arrest quotas," called the OBBB America's "ultimate betrayal".
"Seventeen million people just lost health care, 18 million kids just lost school meals, 3 million Americans just lost food assistance, and US$3.5 trillion ($5.2 trillion) was added to the deficit, all for a tax cut to Trump's billionaire donors," he tweeted.
As he puffed triumphantly on a cigar after the OBBB passed by four votes, Republican Congressman Troy Nehls gave his answer to a version of Sir Major's question.
Did it concern him that Americans would lose their health care?
"Oh well, just some Americans, that aren't Americans, and that is the illegals," he said.
How did you feel when Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, removed aid from the poorest people on the planet?
It is a pretty searching question, right? Both for Americans and for those like Britain and Australia who are proudly America-adjacent.
The words, however, are not mine.
Rather, they belong to an erstwhile Conservative British prime minister, Sir John Major, who delivered a searing 2025 Sir Edward Heath Lecture last week. Ted Heath, too, had been a Conservative PM.
Sir John used the occasion to pose what might be the "major" question for this terrifying historical crux.
How so? I'd wager that the answer to Sir Major's ostensibly narrow question provides an answer to a much wider set of tests going to how resolutely liberal democracy stands against the resurgent competition - populist authoritarianism, military aggression, nativism and "barbarism".
That is to say, what you think about axing USAID operates as a surrogate marker for a deeper public shift in which the citizens of nominal democracies seem prepared to give up on the civilisation project imperfectly pursued since WWII, quietly surrendering values like diplomacy and rules and the concept of universal human dignity.
In his address, Sir Major quantified what sitting prime ministers in his country and ours, steadfastly avoid - the fast-widening gap between what we say we stand for in the West, and what we will stay silent on to ensure smooth relations and serve political self-interest, even in instances of racism and the denial of human rights.
Individually as voters, and officially through our governments, our response to Sir Major's question goes a long way towards explaining the rise and burgeoning confidence of lawless bullies like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Vladimir Putin.
In this, the age of impunity, Sir Major invites us to consider whether we are different from Trump's Americans or merely distant.
For example, if you were unmoved by the epic callousness of his administration's new assault on the least fortunate - its "One Big Beautiful Bill" of tax breaks for billionaires while cutting welfare, you had probably been fine with the earlier closing of USAID.
Unperturbed, still, as USAID's shuttering brought credible predictions of countless preventable deaths (climbing into the millions) - many of them children - in the world's most wretched, war-ravaged regions.
Musk's cheery chainsaw massacre of USAID - the leading global provider of foreign development assistance, including clean water, healthcare, and vaccination against lethal diseases - thrusts him and the toxic administration he served onto the moral trajectory of history's more lethal.
The West's response? Silence. Worse, fawning praise, undignified crawling, pre-emptive capitulations, gushing obedience. Yes, we will spend more on defence, Trump is assured, guaranteeing (by the way) that we, too, must cut foreign aid budgets, and even welfare programs at home.
MORE MARK KENNY:
Sir Major followed his rhetorical question with several more.
"Is barbarianism now acceptable if the barbarian is strong enough, or the victim without friends?" he asked.
"Can it be that our world is so exhausted, politics so tainted, self-interest so predominant that it has abandoned compassion?
"Is might now right? Has the law, human decency, and political morality been cast aside?
"Or is it, perhaps, as simple as this: that our world is now beginning to elect leaders concerned only about national self-interest?
"If so, if politics leads countries to hunker down in their own little trenches of interest, ignore reason, bypass diplomacy, forego enlightened self-interest - then heaven help us all."
Heaven, indeed. It is galling to witness the stunning overlap of people who simultaneously hold to Heaven as a core belief, while actively denying the most fundamental point of Jesus Christ's example: his life stood for nothing if not for care, compassion and respect for the poor, the sick, those cast out to the peripheries.
Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" is a vulgar billionaire's thumb in Christ's eye.
Along with pumping billions into his deportation program, it slashes funds for things as basic as food safety-net programs, green energy, and healthcare, while cementing stonking tax cuts for the mega-wealthy.
This is the country with which Australia shares so many values?
The country that breaks international law without hesitation and re-drafts a felonious former president who had fomented a violent denial of his election loss.
A president who openly uses high office for self-enrichment, vilifies migrants as rapists and murderers, deploys his country's military against political opponents, and commits nearly three times as many dollars to its Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation police than to the FBI.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had decried Trump's immigration agents "parading around masked in unmarked cars and snatching hardworking people off the streets ... just to meet indiscriminate arrest quotas," called the OBBB America's "ultimate betrayal".
"Seventeen million people just lost health care, 18 million kids just lost school meals, 3 million Americans just lost food assistance, and US$3.5 trillion ($5.2 trillion) was added to the deficit, all for a tax cut to Trump's billionaire donors," he tweeted.
As he puffed triumphantly on a cigar after the OBBB passed by four votes, Republican Congressman Troy Nehls gave his answer to a version of Sir Major's question.
Did it concern him that Americans would lose their health care?
"Oh well, just some Americans, that aren't Americans, and that is the illegals," he said.
How did you feel when Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, removed aid from the poorest people on the planet?
It is a pretty searching question, right? Both for Americans and for those like Britain and Australia who are proudly America-adjacent.
The words, however, are not mine.
Rather, they belong to an erstwhile Conservative British prime minister, Sir John Major, who delivered a searing 2025 Sir Edward Heath Lecture last week. Ted Heath, too, had been a Conservative PM.
Sir John used the occasion to pose what might be the "major" question for this terrifying historical crux.
How so? I'd wager that the answer to Sir Major's ostensibly narrow question provides an answer to a much wider set of tests going to how resolutely liberal democracy stands against the resurgent competition - populist authoritarianism, military aggression, nativism and "barbarism".
That is to say, what you think about axing USAID operates as a surrogate marker for a deeper public shift in which the citizens of nominal democracies seem prepared to give up on the civilisation project imperfectly pursued since WWII, quietly surrendering values like diplomacy and rules and the concept of universal human dignity.
In his address, Sir Major quantified what sitting prime ministers in his country and ours, steadfastly avoid - the fast-widening gap between what we say we stand for in the West, and what we will stay silent on to ensure smooth relations and serve political self-interest, even in instances of racism and the denial of human rights.
Individually as voters, and officially through our governments, our response to Sir Major's question goes a long way towards explaining the rise and burgeoning confidence of lawless bullies like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Vladimir Putin.
In this, the age of impunity, Sir Major invites us to consider whether we are different from Trump's Americans or merely distant.
For example, if you were unmoved by the epic callousness of his administration's new assault on the least fortunate - its "One Big Beautiful Bill" of tax breaks for billionaires while cutting welfare, you had probably been fine with the earlier closing of USAID.
Unperturbed, still, as USAID's shuttering brought credible predictions of countless preventable deaths (climbing into the millions) - many of them children - in the world's most wretched, war-ravaged regions.
Musk's cheery chainsaw massacre of USAID - the leading global provider of foreign development assistance, including clean water, healthcare, and vaccination against lethal diseases - thrusts him and the toxic administration he served onto the moral trajectory of history's more lethal.
The West's response? Silence. Worse, fawning praise, undignified crawling, pre-emptive capitulations, gushing obedience. Yes, we will spend more on defence, Trump is assured, guaranteeing (by the way) that we, too, must cut foreign aid budgets, and even welfare programs at home.
MORE MARK KENNY:
Sir Major followed his rhetorical question with several more.
"Is barbarianism now acceptable if the barbarian is strong enough, or the victim without friends?" he asked.
"Can it be that our world is so exhausted, politics so tainted, self-interest so predominant that it has abandoned compassion?
"Is might now right? Has the law, human decency, and political morality been cast aside?
"Or is it, perhaps, as simple as this: that our world is now beginning to elect leaders concerned only about national self-interest?
"If so, if politics leads countries to hunker down in their own little trenches of interest, ignore reason, bypass diplomacy, forego enlightened self-interest - then heaven help us all."
Heaven, indeed. It is galling to witness the stunning overlap of people who simultaneously hold to Heaven as a core belief, while actively denying the most fundamental point of Jesus Christ's example: his life stood for nothing if not for care, compassion and respect for the poor, the sick, those cast out to the peripheries.
Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" is a vulgar billionaire's thumb in Christ's eye.
Along with pumping billions into his deportation program, it slashes funds for things as basic as food safety-net programs, green energy, and healthcare, while cementing stonking tax cuts for the mega-wealthy.
This is the country with which Australia shares so many values?
The country that breaks international law without hesitation and re-drafts a felonious former president who had fomented a violent denial of his election loss.
A president who openly uses high office for self-enrichment, vilifies migrants as rapists and murderers, deploys his country's military against political opponents, and commits nearly three times as many dollars to its Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation police than to the FBI.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had decried Trump's immigration agents "parading around masked in unmarked cars and snatching hardworking people off the streets ... just to meet indiscriminate arrest quotas," called the OBBB America's "ultimate betrayal".
"Seventeen million people just lost health care, 18 million kids just lost school meals, 3 million Americans just lost food assistance, and US$3.5 trillion ($5.2 trillion) was added to the deficit, all for a tax cut to Trump's billionaire donors," he tweeted.
As he puffed triumphantly on a cigar after the OBBB passed by four votes, Republican Congressman Troy Nehls gave his answer to a version of Sir Major's question.
Did it concern him that Americans would lose their health care?
"Oh well, just some Americans, that aren't Americans, and that is the illegals," he said.
How did you feel when Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, removed aid from the poorest people on the planet?
It is a pretty searching question, right? Both for Americans and for those like Britain and Australia who are proudly America-adjacent.
The words, however, are not mine.
Rather, they belong to an erstwhile Conservative British prime minister, Sir John Major, who delivered a searing 2025 Sir Edward Heath Lecture last week. Ted Heath, too, had been a Conservative PM.
Sir John used the occasion to pose what might be the "major" question for this terrifying historical crux.
How so? I'd wager that the answer to Sir Major's ostensibly narrow question provides an answer to a much wider set of tests going to how resolutely liberal democracy stands against the resurgent competition - populist authoritarianism, military aggression, nativism and "barbarism".
That is to say, what you think about axing USAID operates as a surrogate marker for a deeper public shift in which the citizens of nominal democracies seem prepared to give up on the civilisation project imperfectly pursued since WWII, quietly surrendering values like diplomacy and rules and the concept of universal human dignity.
In his address, Sir Major quantified what sitting prime ministers in his country and ours, steadfastly avoid - the fast-widening gap between what we say we stand for in the West, and what we will stay silent on to ensure smooth relations and serve political self-interest, even in instances of racism and the denial of human rights.
Individually as voters, and officially through our governments, our response to Sir Major's question goes a long way towards explaining the rise and burgeoning confidence of lawless bullies like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Vladimir Putin.
In this, the age of impunity, Sir Major invites us to consider whether we are different from Trump's Americans or merely distant.
For example, if you were unmoved by the epic callousness of his administration's new assault on the least fortunate - its "One Big Beautiful Bill" of tax breaks for billionaires while cutting welfare, you had probably been fine with the earlier closing of USAID.
Unperturbed, still, as USAID's shuttering brought credible predictions of countless preventable deaths (climbing into the millions) - many of them children - in the world's most wretched, war-ravaged regions.
Musk's cheery chainsaw massacre of USAID - the leading global provider of foreign development assistance, including clean water, healthcare, and vaccination against lethal diseases - thrusts him and the toxic administration he served onto the moral trajectory of history's more lethal.
The West's response? Silence. Worse, fawning praise, undignified crawling, pre-emptive capitulations, gushing obedience. Yes, we will spend more on defence, Trump is assured, guaranteeing (by the way) that we, too, must cut foreign aid budgets, and even welfare programs at home.
MORE MARK KENNY:
Sir Major followed his rhetorical question with several more.
"Is barbarianism now acceptable if the barbarian is strong enough, or the victim without friends?" he asked.
"Can it be that our world is so exhausted, politics so tainted, self-interest so predominant that it has abandoned compassion?
"Is might now right? Has the law, human decency, and political morality been cast aside?
"Or is it, perhaps, as simple as this: that our world is now beginning to elect leaders concerned only about national self-interest?
"If so, if politics leads countries to hunker down in their own little trenches of interest, ignore reason, bypass diplomacy, forego enlightened self-interest - then heaven help us all."
Heaven, indeed. It is galling to witness the stunning overlap of people who simultaneously hold to Heaven as a core belief, while actively denying the most fundamental point of Jesus Christ's example: his life stood for nothing if not for care, compassion and respect for the poor, the sick, those cast out to the peripheries.
Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" is a vulgar billionaire's thumb in Christ's eye.
Along with pumping billions into his deportation program, it slashes funds for things as basic as food safety-net programs, green energy, and healthcare, while cementing stonking tax cuts for the mega-wealthy.
This is the country with which Australia shares so many values?
The country that breaks international law without hesitation and re-drafts a felonious former president who had fomented a violent denial of his election loss.
A president who openly uses high office for self-enrichment, vilifies migrants as rapists and murderers, deploys his country's military against political opponents, and commits nearly three times as many dollars to its Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation police than to the FBI.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had decried Trump's immigration agents "parading around masked in unmarked cars and snatching hardworking people off the streets ... just to meet indiscriminate arrest quotas," called the OBBB America's "ultimate betrayal".
"Seventeen million people just lost health care, 18 million kids just lost school meals, 3 million Americans just lost food assistance, and US$3.5 trillion ($5.2 trillion) was added to the deficit, all for a tax cut to Trump's billionaire donors," he tweeted.
As he puffed triumphantly on a cigar after the OBBB passed by four votes, Republican Congressman Troy Nehls gave his answer to a version of Sir Major's question.
Did it concern him that Americans would lose their health care?
"Oh well, just some Americans, that aren't Americans, and that is the illegals," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
36 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The PM seems to have sunk below Ley's radar already
Anthony Albanese says he's been underestimated his entire life (' Ley pulls up Albanese for asserting independence ', July 7). Sussan Ley seems to be the latest to do so. As leader of the House in the Gillard minority government, Albanese was responsible for negotiating and navigating a record number of bills to success by careful interaction with various parliamentary stakeholders. It'scalled nuance; it's not a common trait among Liberals and seems completely absent among Nationals. Albanese's positioning of Australia in relation to Trump's America, ANZUS and AUKUS is just that. Ley's all-in approach is both foolhardy and dangerous when this mercurial American president demands obedience, only to reward it with humiliation. Wayne Duncombe, Lilyfield Sussan Ley appears not to see the opportunity for Australia to stake out a beneficial position vis-a-vis the US. There is significant disruption in the world order and the uncertainty, ironically, provides scope for new, or broader, relationships in our region specifically and with like-minded countries across the globe. Aside from submarines, which may never eventuate or will be obsolete technology when delivered, we have little to lose. Look at the list of countries, all once important allies, that an aspiring autocracy now disregards. Australia is clearly low on a list of those who might have anticipated reliable security assistance and support. The US president rewards capitulation and praise, which guarantees us, at best, nothing, or likely increasing demands. Cordial but firm is the reasonable position; neither offensive nor submissive. We can decide our future, and fortunately we are among a number of quality, like-minded, similarly challenged countries prepared to shift the relationship dynamics. Robert Caraian, Crows Nest I believe Anthony Albanese is striking the right balance in his response to the capricious Donald Trump. His calm, considered yet strong responses, including his speech recalling John Curtin's defence of Australia against ally and enemy, evince the right policy. The Coalition's repeated squawking of the need to desperately seek a meeting with Trump is not helpful. And regardless of the correct stance for Australia, Trump admires strength and ridicules sycophants. And while AUKUS still has majority public support, it remains a poor 'deal' for Australia. Who would agree to buy an extremely expensive car that you pay for before delivery (in 15 years' time), when it will be old and outmoded, and you won't necessarily get to drive it. Oh, and the dealer might decide not to deliver the car but keep it for himself and won't return your money. Rowan Godwin, Rozelle Sussan Ley argues that this is not the time for Australia to be inching away from the US. For her information, the distancing is not of our making; Trump has been actively sabotaging America's relationship with all its allies since taking office. I suspect most Aussies are grateful that Labor is in charge during these chaotic times, not the Coalition, considering Ley's comments. It's a mistake to think Trump will start behaving rationally, and Ley is living in la-la land if she thinks Trump is ever going to behave like an adult. In any case, Albo doesn't need any gratuitous advice from an opposition that's still struggling to get its own act together. Graham Lum, North Rocks The Coalition seems to want to base the success of Australia's relationship with the US on whether Anthony Albanese gets a meeting with Donald Trump, as if it might adversely affect the chances of AUKUS going ahead. I don't think too many Australians will be broken-hearted if the deal falls over; it was a loony idea from the start. Ian Adair, Hunters Hill Sussan Ley has missed the point of Donald Trump's undiplomatic behaviour towards Australia and the world. Trump, ever the bully, sees himself as the 'King' of America, presiding over his vassal states. Trump expects homage and allegiance, rather than the strained friendship that characterises our relationship with the US. Albanese has adopted the correct tone towards Trump, and Ley should be supporting not criticising him. It appears that Trump, on advice from his minions, is playing to his home crowd, making friend and foe beg for favours. Ley's decision is facile and ignores the message sent by the election result. China is our largest trading partner. Does Ley expect Albanese to wait to talk to China's leader until after Trump has remembered he needs to meet our PM? That's just silly and not how life nor diplomacy work. Geoff Nilon, Mascot The Tragedy of Trump At last I've discovered the perfect word to sum up President Donald Trump; it's 'jingoistic'. Excessively patriotic, aggressive, warlike, believing himself superior to others. I've heard 'big, beautiful bill' so many times that I'm starting to believe he should have been a poet. Maybe. Another phrase comes to mind also to sum him up. From Shakespeare's Macbeth, when Macbeth summarises life as being 'a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury/Signifying nothing'. And that is Donald Trump as I see him: a jingoistic idiot, signifying nothing except chaos. If the ascent has been spectacular, the burnout will be even brighter. So much so that ash umbrellas will be needed. Peter Skrzynecki, Eastwood Eternal vigilance Much has been said and written about the need for more funding to increase the vigilance of childcare centres and improve the checking system for working with children. But what about more funding for the police department responsible for finding child molesters? In a recent case the crimes were revealed by 'proactive police investigation', which discovered child-abuse material in the man's possession. This must have involved hours of watching those videos posted on the dark web to look for hints of where they were made and by whom. Surely increasing the number, training and turnover of police personnel doing that shocking, depressing but important work would help to speed up the rate of detection? Jill Tuffley, Turramurra The art of living well What a great shame that our governments don't value artists and designers more (' Axe falls on galleries and state's design centre ', July 7). The people who work in these areas produce works that represent who we are, who we aspire to be. Without the celebration of creativity we will continue the mean, inner-looking journey we have been on for too long. Greg Baker, Fitzroy Falls Queen Vic's royal nod It may be of interest to readers that tomorrow (Wednesday, July 9) will be the 125th anniversary of Queen Victoria giving her Royal Assent to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), which created the Commonwealth of Australia on January 1, 1901: 'Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.' Lister Harrison, Brisbane See ya later, culinary larrikin Peter Russell-Clarke's mocking, irreverent but eminently sensible and practical humour was a blessing each evening in the 1980s (' Russell-Clarke never just a cook but also a gifted storyteller, painter, provocateur ', July 7) as my teenage children and immigrant husband awaited my invitation to 'come and get it', all the while painlessly and joyously absorbing the niceties of Australian larrikinism. RIP, Peter. Leone Toker, Port Macquarie In 1988, I participated in the Bicentennial Melbourne to Sydney Bike ride. So did Peter Russell-Clarke. I could always tell when I was catching up with him when I could hear cries of 'Where's the cheese?' in the crowd ahead. Matthew Stevens, Thornleigh As kids, we watched Peter Russell-Clarke's cooking show before being called for dinner, hoping what we were about to be served was going to be as great as what we'd just seen on the telly. Rest well, Peter 'G'day' Russell 'G'day' Clarke, see ya later. Kate van de Wall, Collaroy Plateau While saddened to hear of the death of Peter Russell-Clarke, I was surprised to hear him referred to as 'Australia's first celebrity chef'. Has everyone but me forgotten Graham Kerr from the 1960s? Lesley McBurney, Wavell Heights (Qld) Suffering without end I feel for Rabbi Gabi Kaltmann and all Jewish people ('Synagogue attack targets a community's precious story', July 7). What Jewish people have suffered for millennia weighs on the world's conscience, and many Christians globally have been complicit. However, my support for Jewish people does not cover Netanyahu and his gang in the slightest, just as my support for the Palestinian people does not mean I agree with the tactics of Hamas. Some institutions and individuals refuse to distinguish between antisemitism and opposition to the current Israeli government's destruction of Gaza and its people. This is both complicity in the current crime against the Palestinians and a gross betrayal of the Jewish people and their history. Sister Susan Connelly, Croydon Heritage vandals To add to the long list of heritage buildings in Sydney and the Blue Mountains demolished by neglect (Letter s, July 7) are many regional buildings. One prominent example is the former Kenmore Hospital near Goulburn. It was designed by government architect Walter Vernon and was a psychiatric hospital and military hospital during World War II. Its sporting fields were extensively used by Goulburn sporting clubs, and the complex was an important part of the local community and a big employer. It was decommissioned as a psychiatric hospital in the early 2000s. Despite being a state significant, listed heritage site, it was sold most recently in 2015 to a Chinese-owned company that reportedly had plans to develop it into retirement living spaces and educational facilities. Alas, none of those plans came to fruition and the once elegant buildings lie empty and vandalised, with some partly destroyed by a fire in 2021. Repair work undertaken by Heritage NSW has been painfully slow. There is so much potential for the 138 hectare site – for example, affordable housing, community facilities, accommodation for essential workers, the preservation of an important aspect of Goulburn's history – that is now disintegrating due to neglect. Kate Lumley, Hurlstone Park Tries and mights Although your correspondent (Letters, July 7) may not find contact sports to his liking, his low assessment of its players seems unwarranted. Yes, players do get injured and, as in any walk of life, some individuals will exhibit bullying behaviour. However, despite playing a sport that requires exacting skills under extreme physical stress, it is my observation that the vast majority display a high degree of respect, empathy and camaraderie towards both teammates and opponents. His assertion that 'the majority' are not 'true men' is not only an unfair generalisation about male players but also, ironically, a sentiment that many women and girls who now enjoy the sport might actually welcome. Col Burns, Lugarno I also missed out on that sporting gene and have absolutely no interest in any sport. However, the science of evolution does pique my interest, and seeing (in passing) a goal scored or try success I am reminded (amusingly) that with flexed muscles, clenched fists and the baring of teeth we are not all that distant from our primate cousins. Very interesting. Trish Nielsen, Avalon Tragedy begets thanks The unfolding tragedy in Texas (' Children swept away by an 8m wall of water ', July 7) is a stark reminder of the courage and persistence of volunteers who give their time to helping others. We witness this here time and again and are ever thankful for their service. Vicky Marquis, Glebe Get it off your chest If I could add to the thoughts of your regular correspondent (Letters, July 7), I find writing letters to the editor has provided enormous benefits to my mental health, whether they are published or not. It's just great to get something off your chest, even if it ends up in the bin. Gordon Lambert, Kiama Downs Further to the recent discussion on affordable hobbies, could I suggest the University of the Third Age (U3A)? Most medium-to-large towns have one (there is also an online one), and they cater, as the name indicates, mainly to the retired section of the community. There are no entry requirements, nor are degrees or diplomas awarded – it is learning just for fun. Courses range from subjects such as history and languages to options such as lawn bowls or beekeeping. Tutors are all unpaid volunteers, offering their expertise to other members. Most courses are face-to-face, as apart from the joy of learning, getting together in class also serves an important social and mental health function for an often isolated and lonely sector of the community. Herman Beyersdorf, Bangalee Taylor-made name Perhaps a better idea for Angus Taylor (Letters, July 7) than adding an extra S to his name would be to change it to AnGAS. That might not bring him 'luck and more positive press' but it would certainly endear him to all the climate deniers in the Coalition. Alan Marel, North Curl Curl
AU Financial Review
3 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
Albanese lost in translation as he heads to Beijing
Timing and imagery matter in politics. It may be a coincidence that Anthony Albanese's visit to Beijing this weekend is uncomfortably close to yet another supposed Trump deadline for tariff and trade deals this week. But the willingness of this US president to trample on the diplomatic sensitivities of close allies doesn't give an Australian prime minister the same leeway. Not when the power, economic and security balance is so unequal.
West Australian
4 hours ago
- West Australian
Trump threatens extra 10pc tariff on countries that align with ‘Anti-American' BRICS policies
US President Donald Trump has threatened an additional 10 per cent tariff on countries that orient themselves along the 'Anti-American policies of BRICS.' Trump's announcement, which did not elaborate on any specific policy of BRICS, came as the group's meeting is underway in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 'Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10 per cent Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy,' Trump said in a post on Truth Social Sunday evening stateside. The bloc's leaders took aim at Trump's sweeping tariff policies in a joint statement dated July 6, warning against 'unjustified unilateral protectionist measures, including the indiscriminate increase of reciprocal tariffs.' Without calling out the US, the leaders voiced 'serious concerns about the rise of unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures which distort trade and are inconsistent with WTO rules,' warning that the 'proliferation of trade-restrictive actions' threaten to disrupt the global economy and worsen the existing economic disparities. They also offered symbolic backing to fellow member, Iran, condemning a series of military strikes on the country, without naming Israel or the US which carried out the military operation. The BRICS group includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Iran. The bloc describes itself as 'a political and diplomatic coordination forum for countries from the Global South and for coordination in the most diverse areas.' This year, Chinese President Xi Jinping sent Premier Li Qiang to the meeting in his absence, while Russian President Vladimir Putin, who faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, attended online. BRICS goals include improving economic, political and social cooperation among its members, and 'increasing the influence of Global South countries in international governance.' The bloc seeks to challenge Western-dominated institutions of global economic governance, as well as to supplant the US dollar's role in the global economy, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Separately, Trump confirmed that the US will start delivering letters on Monday, detailing country-specific tariff rates and any agreements reached with various trading partners. That affirmed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's comments over the weekend. The Trump administration has said that tariffs announced in April will take effect on August 1, instead of July 9, for countries that have not reached an agreement with the US. Bessent rejected the idea that Aug. 1 was yet another new tariff deadline. 'We are saying this is when it's happening, if you want to speed things up, have at it, if you want to go back to the old rate that's your choice,' Bessent said Sunday on CNN's 'State of the Union.' In April, Trump announced a 90-day pause on the steep tariffs he had unveiled just days prior on most trading partners. That pause is due to expire on Wednesday, sparking concern among investors and US trading partners. CNBC
