High-speed rail

Don Cummins writes: Re. “Forget high-speed rail — there are plenty of better investments to be made in rail” (yesterday, item 10). Bernard is probably right about the underused Darwin-Adelaide rail systems being a waste of infrastructure dollars. He is wrong to state that the VFT between Sydney and Melbourne would be competing with planes, which do the trip in an hour. It takes a half hour to get to the airport, you must be there at least a half hour before, the trip is an hour and the same at the other end. I won’t even mention the endless fog, lost luggage and cancellations/mechanical problems that plague modern plane commuting.

My experience with the VFTs in Japan (and I agree they only work between high population areas such as Sydney to Melbourne) showed that they travel at 300 kmh, which, with some country stops, will give us a 3-4-hour trip. These trains stop for a couple of minutes only. The wind down is less than five minutes and they achieve full speed (from memory) in one-two minutes. Most importantly the whole luggage/security/airport commute problem largely disappears. You walk on a few minutes before a very reliable departure time and you are deposited into the heart of the city . You are never fogged in or cancelled out. The eastern seaboard VFT is worth a closer look than Bernard has given it.

Simon Rumble writes: OK, Bernard, we get it. You are dead against high-speed rail. Did a French TGV or a Japanese Shinkansen run over your beloved pet capybara at high speed? Clearly you and fast-moving trains have some history together. Can we get someone who isn’t thus tainted to comment on them in future instead, or as well?

Les Heimann writes: Seems there is an uproar against the privileged classes. Also some would prefer the smell of petrol and LPG on the Hume.

No child should be without an education of choice and proper standard at any time. Whether this is at a state-run school or whatever is not the point. Funding should be completely equal and should attach to the student — not the school. This process should end the issue forever — as of right every student should (usually through their parents) be allocated $X direct to a school of choice on a per annum basis.

If that is spent on Hogwarts school of wizardry, who cares — as long as Hogwarts have an approved course of study and Professor Snape is not in control of the Dark Arts all is well.

By the way — a very-fast train would be a distinct advantage getting students off platform nine and a half and off to drift across the lake in moonlight, post haste. Very-fast trains become unnoticed to muggles, thus ensuring all are indeed equal in the eyes of owls.

Gay marriage politics

Marcus Vernon writes: Re. “Judge tells it straight: gay marriage bans have ‘no rational basis‘” (yesterday, item 5). Here we go again — an overseas judge makes a decision on gay marriage, which is not binding on Australia in any way, and is also predicted to be overturned on appeal, and the pink lobby here works itself into a lather of excitement.

So what precisely are the advocates for gay marriage in Australia going to do now? I ask that because since I offered a logical, political explanation to Crikey readers on 6 July as to why gay marriage will never occur in Australia, I’ve seen nothing to suggest supporters of the cause are at all motivated to achieve their goal.

Four weekends have come and gone, including the first half of a vigorous election campaign, and I’ve seen no gay demonstrations in the streets, no marches, no television appearances by gay movement leaders, no confrontations with party leaders on the stump, and heard nothing of any gay candidates. The issue had disappeared with barely a trace until the US court decision yesterday.

But wait, I hear: a day of action for gay marriage on August 14? Is that right? Well, what good is that going to do you, one week before election day? Whose brilliant idea was that?

Good grief, you can bag the heck out of the Australian Christian Lobby if you like, and comments to Crikey yesterday included some disgracefully venomous, intolerant comments. But at least the ACL is out there lobbying candidates in an organised way, including having PM Julia Gillard to dinner tonight. At least the ACL is committed to action.

Why haven’t gay marriage supporters taken to the streets in your hundreds, even thousands, during this election campaign? That’s what the feminists did in the 1960s, the anti-Vietnam War activists in the 1970s, and land rights supporters in the 1980s and later.

Do you really think you are going to have gay marriage handed to you on a silver platter? (No doubt, hand-crafted, antique, European, probably French).

Well, you better think again. Let me remind you that Madame Gillard, your great hope as a single, left-wing atheist woman, dismissed your hopes in the first week of the election campaign in answer to a predictable question from a loudmouth FM radio jock.

And just in case you missed the message, the first openly gay minister in a federal Cabinet, Penny Wong, hasn’t hesitated to repeat the refusal since then. No chance of a resignation on principle there.

Now you can bag the heck out of me and other opponents of gay marriage if you like, just like you did when I explained it all last time. You can tell me about all the Mickey Mouse countries around the world where gay marriage is allowed, or even quote Will & Grace at me again, if that makes you feel witty.

But unless the best and brightest among you put your lives on hold for the best part of a decade, and take your battle up to all politicians in a concerted, well-funded, unrelenting political campaign, including contesting House of Representatives and Senate seats, then yours is a lost cause. Ten years from now you’ll still be waiting for your silver platter.

Kristy Fraser-Kirk

Gavin Greenoak writes: Writing (literally) as a quadriplegic hit by a careless driver, I am bemused at the Fraser-Kirk/McInnes affair. Knowing full well that the rights of women are only proportionate to their responsibilities — as women, in a world where there are always going to be blokes, who maybe should be just the same as women, but actually are not. (Men and women, as such, are their relationship.)

So it has to be some kind of consciousness-raising stunt aimed at the obscene arrogance of some men (as indicated by an up-front statement by the lawyers that a court case is unlikely). But if it is a stunt, then let them declare it soon, before this becomes very seriously and embarrassingly ridiculous, with a victory for moral superiority hanging on the verdict. If it goes to war, then I am sure I will not be alone as a bloke in declaring myself a conscientious objector and pacifist through and through. (Preferably with a woman whose attractiveness consists in her assumption that she can deal quickly, effectively and with decisive humour, to stall the risible behaviour of men out of control. Thank you, darling.)

Reform:

John Kotsopoulos writes: Re. “We won’t reform anything, we promise!” (Campaign Crikey morning edition, yesterday, item 1) “This is a government in head-long flight from any reform that could be construed by anyone, anywhere as the slightest bit threatening.” You cannot be serious, Bernard Keane. The response to the GFC, health reforms, the mining tax and the NBN and are massive initiatives for a very new government in the face of the huge economic uncertainty that has been the backdrop for most of its term. All of these have received significant opposition with the mining tax in particular proving a most difficult political issue.

The mining tax itself s a significant reform that will help fund new infrastructure and restore the balance for the less resource-rich states. A story in The Australian yesterday highlighted the need for the mining tax: “Massive iron ore exports to China have delivered Australia a record trade surplus, but business surveys reveal the rest of the economy is in trouble. And the divide between the mining industry and the rest of the economy is destined to get worse as new minerals projects suck resources from the non-mining sector of the economy.”

And Abbott is happy for the miners to reap the extra benefits of the boom at the expense of the rest of the economy. What the hell is he thinking?

The national broadband network is being pushed by any number of informed parties including employer bodies, the media, medical, education and retail sectors. Telecommuting, better distribution of media, real-time and remote medical diagnostics and immense supply-chain efficiencies are all dependent on a world-class broadband network.

Wireless is no substitute as Abbott and the Luddites in the Liberal Party seem to think. Steve Jobs famously had to ask people at his iPad presentation to shut down their wireless gadgets when a shortage of bandwidth caused his demonstration to close down.

Lack of reform? I don’t think so.

Herby price fixing

A Crikey reader writes: The herb price fixing tip totally misunderstands what price fixing is. It is illegal for competing businesses to fix prices under the Trade Practice Act. So a company can lawfully set whatever prices they like providing they don’t collude with competitors. Usually customers will vote with their feet if they don’t like the price.

Another Crikey reader writes: It would only be price-fixing if Coles and Woolies had a contract, agreement or understanding to sell the herbs for the same price. That would substantially lessen competition in the market for herbs. But who really cares? Get some seeds, chuck them in the garden and you never have to buy any again.

Election tidbits

Keith Binns writes: Re. “Campaign Crikey leftovers” (yesterday, item 16) Abbott not in bowling shoes is peanuts compared to what I saw Gillard doing on the news recently. She was hugging school children. If any of the teachers watching had done the same thing, they would have possibly been in deep trouble and perhaps lost their jobs. Yes, child protection guidelines are that out of touch with the real world.

Brian Mitchell writes: I can’t even remember where I read that the Tasmanian Democrats were preferencing the Liberals ahead of Labor and I am pleased that they are not, even if it took my public humiliation to learn about it (comments, yesterday). Yeah yeah, I could have looked for myself at the AEC or something boring like that but … anyway, thank you to your two correspondents for setting me straight. I will sleep better knowing Abetz is getting at least three fewer votes heading his way.

Tom Richman writes: What almost scares me more than an Abbott prime ministership is the mediocrities, hasbeens and never-wases he’d appoint to his front bench.

Alan Baird writes: I also have reached the stage where I read Bernard like I read Devine, Piers, Bolt and any other right ranter. He’s basically Labor to their Liberal, meaning appalling to their revolting.

Both parties are hopelessly corrupted by influence peddlers, with “Money to Meet the Member/Minister” being an obvious, glaring corruption of democracy just for starters. I realised long ago that nothing I can do will really influence politics in any direction I consider as positive.

The average voter is only vaguely aware of the real state of Australia, let alone the world, but if they were, they wouldn’t persist with dewey-eyed adherence to the major parties. As my brother would say, we’re f-cked and far from home, and there are still people who line up to actively participate in this meaningless exercise. Until overwhelming numbers desert the majors, there will be more of the same. Don’t vote for them as it only encourages them!

Dennis Whelan writes: I’m a Crikey subscriber and a basically ALP supporter though I did vote Liberal once when the Cain government went really bad.

Right now I’m not sure how I’ll vote, my wife will vote Labor even if the devil was leading it, but I do get pissed off with the First Dog bias towards ALP and what I think is a gross misrepresentation of Tony Abbott, who I rather like as someone who is a more real person, and more intelligent, than Crikey makes out. It would be appreciated if you could be just a little less obvious in your bias and dole out the sh-t evenly. You never show Bill Shorten and Wayne Swan for the conniving pricks they really are.

Anyway when my renewal comes up I’ll have a serious think about renewing not that my contribution has much value.

I don’t think any news sheet can afford to be too much one way or the other, as many of the unwashed mob out there do value fairness.

A lot of time on their hands

Jenny Batesman writes: With all due respect to the readers of this fine and well-respected site, it seems to me that there are many people that have a lot of time on their hands to analyse politics and write about it via the mainstream papers and sites such as this.

Do they have jobs, are political nerds or what demographic do they fit into please?