Crikey readers have their say on FOFA reforms, Rupert Murdoch’s tweets and the age of parliamentarians.
CommBank behaviour worse than bikies’
John Richardson writes: Re. “Embarrassing ASIC admissions show danger of FOFA repeal” (yesterday). No wonder Bernard Keane is bewildered. In sunny Queensland, three or more members of a bikie club having a social beer in a public place are at immediate risk of being found guilty of a criminal offence, punishable by up to three years in jail. Close by but worlds away, a significant number of financial planners engage in dishonest conduct without fear of prosecution. While ASIC’s failure to meet its statutory obligations in response to this large scale criminal behaviour is just as scandalous, the very best we get from ASIC Chair Greg Medcraft is “We should have controlled the process more tightly”.
No more Murdoch
Denise Marcos writes: Re. “Pass the tissues” (yesterday). Is there a valid reason for regurgitating Rupert Murdoch’s tweets? Beyond anyone in Australia (and possibly the planet) he enjoys the luxury of unlimited influence via television airtime, newsprint etc around the clock, seven days per week. Why afford Murdoch invaluable space in your publication? It does not make sense to expand this media baron’s demographic by providing an additional platform. Your subscribers expect an alternative to the ubiquitous News Corp psyche — even if you deem Murdoch’s 140 character ramblings to be self-parody. Surely most of your readers are seeking sanctuary from his far-reaching tentacles.
Lies, damned lies and statistics
Greg Williams writes: Re. “Country for old men? A parliamentary snapshot” (yesterday) A minor aside: it would seem that we don’t have over 50% of parliamentarians under the age of 50, but rather “49% aged 50 years or older”. No doubt at first glance the latter description casts a kinder light on the writer’s case. However, surely the major overreach is, whichever of the above descriptions is chosen, “the average Australian is 37 years old” (compared to the average parliamentarian being around 49). Very true: but this 37% figure presumably would include the huge number of the population under the age of 18 (and obviously ineligible to sit in parliament). Perhaps we need to appoint a couple of pre-schoolers to parliament in order to redress this apparent age inequity in representation? Come to think of it, such a move may not be such a bad idea, and no doubt would raise current parliamentary standards in such areas as immature behaviour and manners.