Yesterday Crikey noted that Labor had failed to ask any question in Parliament about the Productivity Commission’s attack on the TPP. However, Labor’s Trade spokesperson Penny Wong did issue a media release on the issue on the PC’s views.

On Assange

Korinne Northwood writes: Re. “The persecution of Julian Assange is not feminist, it’s political” (Monday). Felicity Ruby’s argument seems to be: Julian Assange is a great great man who shouldn’t be charged with sexual assault because what he did wasn’t “rape rape”, and besides, those women lied because it’s just a vague political conspiracy to try and take down this great great man. Framed another way, Julian Assange is a man who has used his privilege, the media, and the force of the legal profession to avoid prosecution for sexual assault in a way that causes his alleged victims great distress.  He has managed to make these sexual assaults all about him, and Felicity Ruby, despite her claims of being a feminist, is happy to help him out.

Why the libs hate Q&A 

Ken Lambert writes: Re. “Rundle: Liberals hate Q&A because it is, well, liberal” (yesterday). “They trash the principle that citizenship is a universal right, not extinguished even by odious criminality,” says Rundle. Dual citizenship Guy? Such a thing should not exist, but given the imperfection in this world, then which of the two nations to which one shows loyalty and devotion qualifies as upholder of a universal inextinguishable right? And for all the LNP’s illiberality, the stark fact is that the Mallah’s and Hicks’ of this world can jeer at and heckle government ministers in public and go home to watch it on TV, assured in their tiny minds that they won’t disappear without trace. Guy, you want to worry more about all those citizenship loving nations where people like Zaky run the show and people like you get dropped out of helicopters far out to sea.

On the Federation white paper

Marcus L’Estrange writes: Re. “Federation reform paper a big missed opportunity” (yesterday). Why not have one government department for health and one for education, for all of Australia, run by a cabinet of nine ministers for each national department? One from all the states, territories and the Commonwealth. Over time the state, territories and the Commonwealth separate departments would largely disappear and only remain as a tiny policy unit to advise their respective ministers. Think of the savings resulting from the reduction of duplication and confusion?