THE LUCKY COUNTRY? 

Dear editor,

Australia has always had a healthy appetite for a good moan. Tune into talkback radio, scroll through social media, or linger at any weekend barbecue and you’ll hear the familiar refrain: the country’s going to the dogs. According to some, we’re teetering on the edge of collapse.

But step back for a moment and look at the broader picture. In a world marked by conflict, instability and deep inequality, Australia remains one of the safest, most prosperous nations on earth. That’s not blind patriotism; it’s a simple, factual comparison.

Our median wealth sits among the highest in the world. Our health system—imperfect though it may be—is still the envy of many developed nations. The PBS keeps essential medicines affordable. Universal suffrage, compulsory education, and a retirement system built on both pension and superannuation have created a foundation that supports ordinary working people far better than many of our peers.

Since Federation, we’ve never been invaded. We’ve never had a civil war. Our democracy was argued into existence, not fought for with bloodshed. And while our politics can be messy, both conservative and progressive governments have historically contributed to a national ethos built around fairness and practicality.

None of this means Australia is without problems. Housing affordability is a genuine crisis. Inequality is widening. People fall through the cracks—often through no fault of their own—and the consequences can be devastating. We should never ignore or minimise that reality.

But we also shouldn’t talk ourselves into believing we live in a failed state. Our tax burden sits below the OECD average. Our national debt is manageable.

Our institutions function. Our social contract—though strained—still holds.

In short, Australia is not perfect, but it is far from broken. The “fair go” isn’t just a slogan; it’s a cultural achievement that has shaped a remarkably stable and prosperous nation. Perhaps instead of insisting everything is falling apart, we could recognise what’s working, protect what matters, and improve what needs fixing.

A little less doom‑scrolling and a little more perspective might remind us just how lucky we really are.

Garry Reynolds,
Peregian Springs.
##

LOOK AFTER YOUR BUY  

Dear editor,

I recently shopped at a local supermarket, which I have done for some 26 years. I am a minor, unrecognised investor. At the checkout, my receipted amount seemed high, so I thought I would check it later. Now, this is not something I do often, as I accept the integrity of businesses as a given.

However, when I checked the receipt the next morning, I had been charged twice for an item costing $21! Thinking on this, I realised it was the third time over the past 12 months. This is not good enough!

The staff never batted an eyelid, gave only a cursory glance and immediately refunded the money. The staff member stated there had been several that day!

Beware – these are strange times.

Name supplied,
Coolum Beach.
##

ECONOMIC DEALS 

Dear editor,

The old song keeps playing in my mind, which goes like this.

“There’s a hole in your bucket, Mr Albanese, dear Albanese, there’s a hole in your bucket.”

“Then put some straw in it, Mr Chalmers, dear Chalmers…”

Except the “straw” is not straw. It is $2.5 billion of taxpayers’ money – money that could otherwise support hospitals, aged care, disability services, housing or cost-of-living relief.

The Tomago aluminium-smelter deal is being presented as protecting jobs, but the government has not released the full business case, the electricity-price arrangements, the taxpayer’s maximum exposure, or the formula for recovering money if aluminium prices rise.

Meanwhile, the beneficiary includes Rio Tinto, a company that has made substantial profits.
If a multinational of that size will leave unless taxpayers subsidise its power, Australians deserve to see every condition attached to this rescue package.

Hunter jobs matter. But transparency matters too. Until the government proves this is a time-limited, enforceable investment – not another blank cheque for corporate power bills, then it is hard not to conclude that we are simply pouring health and community-service dollars into a bucket with a hole in it.

Colin Claudell,
Coolum Beach.
##

SOCIAL MEDIA  

Dear editor,

The underestimation of the online skill and intelligence of under-16-year-olds by the Federal Government’s legislation has proven that where there’s a will, there’s a tech-savvy under-16-year-old. Determined and focused on continuing their social media interplay, they will not be told that they are banned from their internet relationships and research, despite the harm the legislation hopes to prevent.

This puts the onus on their teachers, parents and guardians, who defy the rules, complicit for whatever reason, whether they are aware or not. They sanction the children in their care to break the rules, whether by failure to monitor or pester power. Those who tolerate breaking the rules will suffer the consequences now or in the future.

Apparently, 80% of children online under 16 still manage to manipulate the system, or work through other mediums or people, to defy the legislation.

What the majority of parents of children are doing, from babyhood, is to use the internet for entertainment and babysitting! The onus is on adults to constrict the usage, for their own good! The internet is a jungle of good and bad, which the naive cannot yet comprehend as children. It is a minefield for the uneducated, unaware of the traps and pitfalls.

Parents who are oblivious to the harm of free access to internet sites enculturate their offspring to the point that it normalises being online on their devices.

Children learn what they live. They see other children and adults constantly online on their devices, wherever they go, so they see it as a normal sense of entitlement.

How far can a government dictate what the boundaries are in governing what is best for the child?

E. Rowe,
Marcoola.
##