A still from ABC TV's new ad campaign (Image: ABC)

What’s with the ABC’s new ‘it must be love’ campaign? Crikey readers have a few answers — and suggestions about what the ABC should really be focussing on. Elsewhere, readers return to the age-old problems of post-ministerial jobs and the fraught aged care sector.

On the ABC’s love campaign

Marian Arnold writes: They are speaking to the converted. As a rusted on supporter/watcher/viewer I don’t need to be sold to. Further, it becomes boring and tedious. And we know the present government hates it with a passion because occasionally the ABC hold our elected representatives to account; or, in the case of the current prime minister — who is masterly at not answering, diverting or the “wasn’t me” game — it at least tries.

Neil Halliday writes: The ABC advertising itself is indulgent nonsense; if it can’t offer a better and more inspiring alternative than commercial media, it shouldn’t be in business. No need to advertise a better product. One of the reasons I turn to the ABC is its absence of advertising; and I certainly don’t want to listen to self-promotion (other than an indication of upcoming programs).

On the question of post-politics jobs

Peter Burch writes: The simple answer has to be a resounding NO!  Whether or not it’s true, it potentially smacks of impropriety. There should be a three year embargo following the resignation/retirement of anybody who’s involved in politics — at federal, state and local-government level — on them seeking or being offered employment that clearly benefits from their insider-knowledge.

On the aged care crisis

Robin Catton writes: Thank you for stamping your feet on the floor, and banging on the doors and windows about this repugnant state of play in our country. However, this is not a political issue. It is a social and cultural matter. It simply highlights, and emphasizes, the mean, vindictive, spiteful, and violent nature of the people that live in this country.

The owners of these “businesses” treat the residents as a commodity. The food that is served at the various homes is utterly disgraceful. And whatever cost savings that owners/management can dream up, then bang: that’s the way it is baby! And God help the poor souls that have to endure the neglect and violence if they have any issues with treatment from staff.  Just check out the videos from the royal commission into aged care. 

Unless, and until, Australians deal with the chips on their collective shoulders, and their utter lack of respect for nearly all things and people that don’t fit their preferences, this ugly, inhumane situation will just bumble along as it has been for the last fifty years.

Kathryn Robinson writes: How to fix ages care? Throw out every current policy and start again with representation from the senior community and their families, medical professionals and carers from that sector, ethicists and maybe a caring politician — if one can be found.

Marilyn J Patton writes: This government, in all people-serving areas, seeks it’s policy and its implementations to be hidden from public scrutiny.  In institutional aged care, in home packages, in the NDIS, in youth care and detention programs, and in others that are too many to mention, it all happens behind a screen to no one’s benefit. So we read about the deaths and the misdeeds in the papers or see it on the telly.

It would behoove the government, as a whole and as individuals with portfolios, to seek out the engagement of community and family members as observers, helpers, monitors and allies, to give input and report back to the government. Without communication loops there is no hope of the systems ever getting better or more relevant to meet the growing needs of those in strife.

David Charlton writes: I don’t think we can blame anyone for not having COVID-specific policies in place before the virus first presented itself. However, not having a “game plan” for any potential community disease that may establish itself in aged hospitals/residential care establishments must surely be gross dereliction of duty by governments and departments.

Why do we pay large amounts of money to ministerial staffers and department heads if they cannot understand the basic job in hand? Could there be future “duty of care” litigation arising?

Let us know your thoughts by writing to [email protected]. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in this column.

Peter Fray

72 hours only. 50% off a year of Crikey and The Atlantic.

Our two-for-one offer with The Atlantic was so popular we decided to bring it back.

But only for 72 hours.

Use the promo code ATLANTIC2020 and you’ll get 50% off a year of Crikey (usually $199) and a year of digital access to The Atlantic (usually $70). That’s BOTH for just $129.

Hurry. Ends midnight this Thursday.

Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey

Claim Now