Budgeting for homes and babies
Related two reporter The items caught my attention. The first of these, Parnell Palme McGuiness, stated that the main reason for despair among most of the 18 to 35-year-old generation is the impossibility of owning their own home (“Young Australians are desperate. I decided to find out why”, 22 March). The second was Matt Canavan urging Australians to have more babies (“This is one of the biggest challenges we face, but oh baby, simple solutions won’t fix it,” March 16). There are many avenues open to the federal government to raise funds to assist young first home buyers and possibly encourage them to have larger families. Here’s a list: Remove CGT benefits on residential property, eliminate negative gearing, remove open share payments, stop funding ultra-rich private schools, exit AUKUS, reduce or replace tax-dodging family trusts, eliminate or reduce funding for fossil fuels. I could go on, but the point is that such savings can make a significant contribution to reducing the younger generation’s sense of hopelessness and have little or no impact on the mental state of the rich and retired. We hope the next budget will address some of these initiatives. Neil Austen, Collaroy
More resources, less research
Did we really need another study to tell us that lack of sleep and a dysfunctional home environment could potentially harm mental health (“Revealed: Secret to happy teenagers,” March 22)? It is also clear that engagement with social media and bullying at school are important factors in increasing mental health problems. However, as in most issues, what is needed here is not more studies and investigations, but more solutions and resources. Graham Lum, Northern Rocks
For God’s sake, how much time and money was spent on a study that concluded sleep is essential for teenagers’ mental health and that distress at home causes anxiety when all the researchers had to do was ask their grandmother? Alicia Dawson, balmain
clear the smoke
Isn’t it time for the government to address what is already widely understood about the illicit tobacco market (“Smoking rates have fallen in Australia for decades. But that has changed – and here’s why”, 22 March)? By steadily increasing taxes on cigarettes while simultaneously restricting access to and reducing the appeal of vaping products, the government has created a clear policy paradox. These two markets are closely linked, but electronic cigarettes, widely accepted as a more effective, popular and significantly less harmful alternative for users looking to quit smoking, are seen as a threat rather than an opportunity. The result was to compress two regulated markets into a single, expanding illicit market, eroding both public health consequences and regulatory oversight. How much more taxpayer money will be spent trying to implement increasingly ineffective policies? Pam Mulholland, Meadow Springs (WA)
young mothers
Messenger of the Sun I was struck by the article about a young unmarried woman being forced to give up her baby (“I was drugged and terrified, I heard little screams in the distance. The nurses had taken my baby away,” March 22). In Waverley, not far from Crown Street, my friends and I used to pass fields where many young, pregnant girls lived in a big house with a big, beautiful garden. When we asked about the girls’ situation, our mothers would use their sad and painful situation as a fear-based birth control method for us. In the early 1970s, my friends and I joined thousands of women passionately fighting for women’s rights. We will continue to support women’s rights as long as the memories of our youth remain. Cecily Chittick, Wyong
Reading the article about forced adoption brought back a vivid memory. In 1976, I had a very difficult birth with my first child at Crown St Women’s Hospital and remained there for several weeks due to birth injuries. It saddens me to think that the doctors and nurses who cared for me so compassionately may have somehow been involved in this shocking, cruel practice. Mary Lawson, Marrickville
Tolerant voting
Rob Harris is right – preferential voting is the antidote to the system that tolerates the intolerance of the Liberal Party and One Nation (“The Hanson paradox. How a populist surge becomes Labour’s friend”, 22 March). In his acceptance speech, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas touched on tolerance in a Henry Lawson poem and promised to listen to those who are disappointed. But historically, and particularly One Nation, thrives on intolerance of difference, and to a lesser extent the Liberal Party also thrives on this. The gradual adoption of the Voice in parliament and the shift away from the common good of climate policy is rooted in intolerance of science and First Nations. He flirted with Trump’s intolerance. It is largely the tolerance of preferential elections that ensures a tolerant society in Australia. Anne Eagar, Epping
- To send a letter Sydney Morning HeraldEmail letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to send letters.
- The opinion newsletter is a weekly package of opinions that will challenge, defend and inform. Sign up here.
