On Australia’s relationship with East Timor

John Richardson writes: Re. “Australia continues rich and time-honoured tradition of swindling East Timor” (Monday)

I wonder if the new “friendship” imposed on East Timor will be sealed by a public apology from the Australian government for its treacherous behaviour in trying to facilitate the theft of resources from our youngest neighbour for the commercial benefit of private sector interests? 

And if such an apology is ever forthcoming, will it extend to the East Timorese government’s legal representative in Australia, Mr Bernard Collaery, whose offices were searched & documents wrongfully seized during a raid authorised by the same individual who had previously authorised the illegal bugging operation?

And in the new climate of goodwill between the former protagonists, will the Australian government return the passport of the former ASIS employee who exposed the illegal espionage perpetrated by our “intelligence” agencies?

And finally, now that the dispute between the two nations is allegedly resolved, is it too much to hope that those responsible for bringing our nation into disrepute will be held accountable? But then, who can remember the last time an Australian government changed its spots?

On “right of return” and section 44 of the constitution

Marcus L’Estrange writes:  Re. “Rundle: could Israel’s ‘right of return’ ensnare Danby, Dreyfus and Frydenberg in the section 44 thicket?”  (Monday)

If Michael Danby and others are found not to be in breach of Section 44 ,can Michael cease being the “MP for Israel” as he is known by all, locally and in Canberra, spend less time in Israel and concentrate on issues affecting his long suffering electorate who are crying out for a real local federal MP?