Kylie Macdonald writes: Re. “Stockbrokers in secret” (Wednesday). I read with great interest your “tip” regarding the goings on at last week’s “Stockbrokers Awards 2013”. I am female, I attended, and I have been a director on the board of the Australian Stockbrokers Foundation for 12 years, which distributes to many Australian charities the hundreds of thousands of dollars raised at this very event — the funds raised at last week’s awards night only part of the $7 million raised since the foundation’s inception 20 years ago.
The room having more males than females is indicative of the industry in which we work. All females in the room, whether they were guests or staff, were treated with respect. We would rather you focus on the positive impact the foundation has effected in the community from the funds raised from the stockbrokers in the room, rather than adding to the media hype with the current gender argument and “rumoured” behaviour.
Time for the Greens
Robert Humphreys writes: Re. “Harsh lessons from Greens cash splash” (Friday). I am appalled at the ignorance displayed by your two writers — Janet McCalman and Douglas Kirsner regarding the Greens. Any open-minded reading of Greens policies could not conclude that they represent “extreme” views. Rather, they in my view represent a present day raft of policies that a Labor Party (true to its founding principles) would have adopted. I have no evidence to put forward, but both writers appear to have a strong tribal loyalty to the present-day, rather shadow of its former self, Australian Labor Party. Their kind of anti-Green caricature is typical of those on the Right of the political spectrum and by dwindling “true believers” — still members of the ALP who just can’t bring themselves to admit their organisation has lost the plot — and to quote Julia Gillard is neither “social democrat, progressive but Labor”, whatever that maybe in 2013.
How about asking some of those members of the NTEU who voted in favour of financially supporting the Greens in the 2013 federal election a right of reply to what are very one-sided and hostile pieces of writing?
Rudd’s fellow travellers
Tony Llewellyn-Jones writes: Re. “Rudd’s scrappy pre-election cabinet: who’ll serve with him?” (Thursday). Hmm. Andrew Crook’s suggested Rudd cabinet (to be sworn in on Monday, July 1) seems pretty damn good. They know their ways around the corridors and should be perfectly capable for a couple of months. Not enough women certainly, but more than the current opposition.
At least he tries
Peter Matters writes: Re. “Divine spin: inside the Church PR machine — and why Pell must go” (Friday). In defence of Cardinal Pell — for a priest he is an excellent rugby player.