On high-speed rail
Edward Zakrzewski writes: Re. “The little policy that couldn’t: high-speed rail’s failures to launch” (yesterday). Has anyone investigated the “moderately fast train” approach which would have far less strict engineering requirements. A trip between Melbourne and Sydney or Sydney to Brisbane in say, six hours would be great and a lot safer.
Peter Mair writes: Re. “ASIC, the Keystone Cop on the beat, won’t save the Liberals” (yesterday). I have been an active observer and commentator on regulatory competence, and not, for decades — and nothing has come close to ASIC and its predecessors for sheer incompetence. It took over a decade of repeated pleas for ASIC to finally accept that financial advisers had a fiduciary obligation to their clients — its determined reluctance could have been sponsored by the major banking groups.
Peter Matters writes: ASIC had always been too underfunded to do its important job properly. Then Tony cut their funds savagely, leaving ASIC next to useless. When Malcolm and his crew assured us that we don’t need a Royal Commision to examine the propriety or otherwise of big companies because ASIC was doing a proper job, their lies would easily be provable in court. Moreover, the lies were big enough reason to disqualify Malcolm from retaining his prime ministership, let alone the additional reason of judging us, the people, as dunderheads prepared to swallow the lies.