Albanese must play hardball with gambling industry

Victoria Devine shows a true heart and social awareness in appealing to the new federal government to minimise gambling advertising (“PM must stick to gambling vow”, May 11). When times are harder, people tend to take risks, and studies have shown those most at risk are targeted. The PM and his government must step up to ensure the gambling industry’s advertising is curtailed and attempt to ensure the future of many families remains free from the harm of intrusive advertising and abusive gambling practices, especially through technology. Janice Creenaune, Austinmer

Highway to hell

I wholly empathise with Thomas Mitchell’s opinion piece (“In a jam, don’t tell me which lane is faster”, May 11). I feel his anguish, especially when motoring along a freeway when a “roadworks ahead” sign appears, providing a clear indication that things are about to slow down. Invariably, the back seat driver occupying the front passenger seat pipes up “they’re moving over to the right, darling”. Knowing it was meant helpfully, I indicate and merge to the right. Fury soon sets in, for as sure as tradies drive utes, several of those oversized pick-up trucks go whizzing by in the left lane, intent on barging into the queue ahead. With thoughts of “I just knew I shouldn’t have listened to him”, the steam billowing from my ears promptly fogs up the windscreen. Mary Carde, Parrearra (Qld)

Thomas Mitchell wrote another fun article in Sunday’s paper (“In a jam, don’t tell me which lane is faster”, May 11). He mentioned the “Baby on Board” sticker. His comments about it reflect the erroneous view of most motorists. It is not a sticker to proclaim that others should drive more carefully around you because you may have a precious person inside. It was conceived as an alert to emergency workers that in the event of an accident they will always look to save a baby first. Susan Haylock, Mosman

Maley, Huntley hit the mark

What a delight it was to read two excellent articles analysing the election results. Jacqueline Maley’s article details the key points from the post-election reviews conducted by the Liberal Party in 2016, 2019 and 2022 (“The Liberals still refusing to learn from their history with women,” May 11). She concludes very accurately that they have never been comfortable with feminism, and that this is a critical component in addressing equality and improving productivity. Rebecca Huntley’s article includes the startling statistic that “Australia added more renewable capacity to the energy system than the entirety of the Coalition’s nuclear plan” (“Toxic fallout assured if Coalition sticks to nuclear”, May11). It was simply astounding that the Liberals depended on a consultancy to work on a completely new direction for Australia’s energy needs – for free. No wonder they declined to do more work on it to give us an idea of how much energy would actually cost. The downer was Parnell Palme McGuinness’ article (“Libs’ failure needs a paternity test”, May 11). A paternity test points the party backwards to Howard or even Menzies. This misses the points of progress needed as described in the first two articles. To conclude that “Albanese was the lesser of two evils” denies the focused and cohesive policies put forward by Labor to progress Australia. Bill Johnstone, Blackheath

Rebecca Huntley’s research underscores the federal election result. Intuitively, renewable energy feels the right fit for our vast continent, where the sun shines and the wind blows across millions of square kilometres. It would be right for Australia even without alarm over climate change. The long view of history will look back on fossil fuels as only ever an interim source of energy – eventually superseded, like horse power and steam engines. The transition to renewables may not always go smoothly, but home-based energy security and sustainability have immense appeal in a world where uncertainty prevails. Margaret Johnston, Paddington

What an interesting article from Rebecca Huntley about nuclear power and its effect on the election result. She also discussed the relative popularity of renewable energy in Australia. Hidden at the bottom of the article was an interesting assertion that last year Australia added more renewable capacity to the energy system than the entirety of the Coalition’s nuclear plan. If true, I have to ask first, why on earth did the Coalition put forward such a costly, problematic, taxpayer-funded scheme? Was it a death wish? Second, why did Labor not provide this information as part of their election campaign? Power supply is such an important part of the economy that Australians should know more about it. Can I suggest a new “Power Supply” section in the Herald? A Daily Power Dashboard could be useful showing yesterday’s power usage and which power source it came from, including the working life of power stations. With some actual data, maybe we could take some of the politics out of this important topic. Dick Barker, Epping

Jacqueline Maley’s opinion piece rightly draws attention to the Liberal Party’s own analysis of its “woman problem”. It’s not like they haven’t figured it out, it’s just that they are apparently unable to change. In my view, people have a tendency to overrate their uniqueness. Everyone who ends up with a ministerial portfolio is faced with a steep learning curve. If they are willing and able to knuckle down and learn, they can master it. Gender is irrelevant. As for feminism, I always thought the power at the core of that idea was its potential to liberate everyone, not just biological women. If it had worked as the ultimate force for change in the human world, we would all be liberated from restrictive ideas about gender differences. Garry Feeney, Kingsgrove

Home truths

According to recent election analysis, the most important issue was the cost of housing: people not being able to afford to buy a house, and many others finding it hard to find affordable rentals. Yet way too often we have articles on celebrities and wealthy people splashing their dosh about buying up extravagant multimillion-dollar homes. Is it really necessary to broadcast what could be described as a vulgar display of money being paid for houses the majority of us could never afford to buy, let alone rent? Con Vaitsas, Ashbury