AAA<\/p>\n
![\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/2bb34bb5ce2db2132da22d8440862d5d3d8f9c96.jpeg\")
Photo: Megan Herbert <\/p>\n
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@theage.com.au<\/a>. Please include your home address and telephone number. No attachments, please include your letter in the body of the email. See here<\/a> for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.<\/p>\n The Age\u2019s investigation into the Big Build continues to expose more situations where Premier Jacinta Allan hasn\u2019t confronted them and ensured that they are properly investigated and, where appropriate, legal proceedings undertaken. As your correspondent (Letters, 22\/7) says: \u2033\u2063The refusal to call a royal commission into the Big Build \u2013 despite persistent concerns about governance and culture \u2013 is indefensible. The call for a royal commission will not go away.\u2033\u2063 Trying to defend the indefensible A minister who can\u2019t read the classroom Mixing demographics for housing needs THE FORUM<\/p>\n Grandeur gone A city\u2019s human scale Just like firewood Next, the flat Earth Joyce, we have a problem Barking up wrong tree Premier, act for teachers Take independent path AI\u2019s opportunities
In early June, the premier conceded the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission needed to be empowered to investigate the Big Build money trail with a broader remit to investigate corruption in state institutions. However, the increased powers would not be available until the end of 2027. If she acted now and brought forward the legislation for an additional remit for IBAC (with proper funding), it may prove to be an acceptable alternative to a royal commission. It would take months before IBAC concluded its investigation, during which there will be matters that emerge that may be embarrassing to government. However, it would show that she has begun a substantial process, and perhaps start to recover some validity before the November election.
Bill Pimm, Mentone<\/p>\n
As the chorus grows louder for a royal commission in Victoria on the Big Build, it has become an almost comic spectacle watching the premier basically trying to defend the indefensible, using any tactic she can find \u2013 verbalising when she shouldn\u2019t, casting doubt on expert opinion and using evidence to support her claims without authority.
And we learnt that at a recent cabinet meeting to head off any concerns within her own party, she enlisted the support of three senior ministers to shut it down and \u201cgrind it out\u201d.
Watching this unnerving experience leads any reasoned person to ask, what actually is the premier hoping to hide? Why do 70 per cent of Victorians, as quoted by The Age, feel the need for a royal commission but the premier constantly ignores this? Surely, this constant frowardness accounts for her unpopularity levels being off the Richter scale? Most Victorians, I think, feel it\u2019s time to reveal all.
Tony Davidson, Glen Waverley<\/p>\n
Victoria\u2019s Education Minister Ben Carroll does not seem able to read the classroom. Three times now, rank-and-file teachers and support staff have rejected his department\u2019s offers on pay and conditions. Carroll has had nearly three years to halt the rundown in Victorian public education resourcing and consequent escalation in teacher and education support staff stress and burn-out. The underfunding of public education is at the core of the problem, and with everything that\u2019s going on, Carroll still cannot commit to bringing Victoria up to the same level of funding as other states.
Attempting \u2033\u2063sweetheart\u2033\u2063 deals with the Australian Education Union leadership that in no way addressed the crisis was a big mistake. It demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what is going on in his own department. Next, his attempt to go around the union with a direct offer to education workers failed when confronted with the organised opposition of union rank-and-file members.
Surely, it\u2019s time to \u2033\u2063talk turkey\u2033\u2063 and strike a deal that fundamentally addresses the funding shortfall, and improves teaching conditions and the quality of public education in Victoria.
Mike Naismith, Clifton Hill<\/p>\n
Thanks to your correspondent (Letters, 16\/7) for calling out deliberate segregation of housing occupants based on affordable versus higher-value homes. This is an ugly and divisive feature of our competitive and aspirational society. Housing policy at all levels of government must ensure a more even demographic mix. And a chance to get along with others.
Nina Earl, Mordialloc<\/p>\n
Thank you, Rob Adams, for the article, \u201cWhat makes Melbourne special is its unique CBD. One building could bring it all undone<\/a>\u201d (22\/7). This part of the Metro train development makes my blood boil. When one stood in Federation Square and looked towards Flinders and Swanston streets, the city looked spectacular \u2013 St Paul\u2019s Cathedral, Young & Jacksons, Flinders Street Station and Clements House. The train development should not have added anything above the height of the buildings they demolished. But instead of seeing a wonderful heritage-listed building, now we will have an ugly, 40-metre, imposing office building (of all things) by the corner.
Heaven forbid if they extend the height to 76 metres. This corner was one of Melbourne\u2019s greatest assets. Who is responsible for destroying it?
Owen Jones, Williamstown<\/p>\n
The factors that influence urban growth change over time. Limitations may be imposed by climate, topography, geographical location and other \u201cenvironmental\u201d considerations. The pace of technological change is ensuring that cities can no longer evolve organically. Many traditional urban design strategies seem increasingly irrelevant in the light of changing communication, access and transport realities. Rob Adam\u2019s\u2019 plea for respect of human scale and the 1985 Melbourne Strategy Plan (Comment, 22\/7) reads a trifle wistfully, 40 years on, but there may yet be hope.
Such factors as increased working from home, aided by revolutionised communications and powered by AI, may well result in the sort of decentralised development pattern that urban planners used to wish for.
Melbourne needs to take a longer view: human scale is vital for the city\u2019s health, and developers need to look more creatively at the ways their current economic models may be influenced by the likely pace and direction of change.
Jenifer Nicholls, Windsor<\/p>\n
I agree with the call to ban wood fires (Letters, 22\/7) especially in urban areas. Even before the findings that the smoke increased risk of dementia I just cannot believe that it is reasonable for one household to inflict their smoke on neighbours. It stops me opening my windows in morning to air out house, or putting my washing on the line.
Helen Day, Torquay<\/p>\n
I read with incredulity the article, \u2033\u2063Early images of deaths during pandemic were staged<\/a>\u2033\u2063 (22\/7), in which One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts claimed that images of deaths in Italy and China in the early stages of the pandemic were fake. That a member of parliament indulges in such a ludicrous conspiracy theory is not just laughably ridiculous, but disrespectful to those people, and the millions of others around the world who died, to the families who grieved, and to the medical workers who in some cases also gave their lives to help the victims. It is gutter-level politics.
Do we need a person of this calibre to hold a position of responsibility in our parliament? I await his views on a flat Earth and faked moon landings.
Bruce McClure, Middle Park<\/p>\n
Re Barnaby Joyce\u2019s suggestion that illegal immigrants be targeted through doctors\u2019 visits (\u2033\u2063Joyce goes from lighting the fires to carrying the bucket<\/a>\u2033\u2063, 22\/7): First problem is Medicare, which is available for refugees, humanitarian entrants and eligible asylum seekers, but not for illegal immigrants, so a government of any persuasion could not use Medicare to flag their attendance.
Second problem: Identification. GPs and hospitals see and treat many people without Medicare cards. Most are on visas, some are illegal entrants or overstayers (we don\u2019t distinguish, or indeed ask, or need to know). Each is a patient with a health issue, some very serious or acute. We treat a medical problem, not a visa status.
Third problem: Confidentiality. If patients thought we were about to report them to authorities, they wouldn\u2019t present. Doctors are bound by confidentiality unless someone is in danger. We look after people, we don\u2019t demonise them.
Dr Will Twycross, Mansfield<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a sad reflection on our political maturity when a command to stop a dog barking becomes the key talking point in the national political discourse. Surely, there are more important issues to yap about.
Martin Newington, Aspendale<\/p>\n
Teachers care for and educate our children. We cannot do without them. It\u2019s shameful that they have to go on strike to secure better pay and working conditions. Jacinta Allan, if you want our respect and votes, respect our teachers. Speak to your people and make this happen. Make it so that teachers never again have to go on strike.
Merron Cullum, Cremorne<\/p>\n
Your correspondents are right to despair about the Victorian Big Build (Letters, 22\/7). It sits alongside rising debt, rogue native forest logging, and continued support for duck shooting as some of the many concerns in our state. These are all issues that Jacinta Allan has struggled to address.
As one correspondent noted, however, under Labor, Victoria\u2019s progress on a Treaty as well as the state\u2019s commitment to renewable energy targets has been commendable. Jess Wilson\u2019s Liberal Party has signalled it would drop both of these positives. One Nation candidates would almost certainly do the same. Come November, I hope many of us can support independent or minor party candidates. They might be able to hold onto the positives and confront the challenges with integrity and transparency.
Amy Hiller, Kew<\/p>\n
The first industrial robot, Unimate, began work at General Motors in the United States in 1961. Kawasaki licensed the technology, producing its own versions by 1969. By the mid 1970s, Europe had developed advanced industrial robots, but there was resistance to their adoption. Japan embraced them, especially in the car industry, helping its rise to global leadership in motor manufacturing. Today, all motor manufacturers have adopted robots to remain competitive.
AI is no different. It is another technology that will reduce the need for human labour in certain areas. We can choose to be dragged along, or to be at the forefront in adopting technology safely and to the benefit of all.
Automation is accelerating. We welcome it in our homes, yet often discuss its social impact only in terms of lost jobs.
The question is not simply, \u201cHow many jobs will disappear?\u201d but, \u201cHow should life and work function in an automated society?\u201c
The debate must be about how to reshape our social structures, the ownership and governance of key technologies and the means of production, and how to make sure everyone (not just the few billionaires that own these companies) benefit from technology.
Ravi Corea, Macleod<\/p>\n
![\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/413efce7989a0c64a2c995a40cbb32cba6156f79.jpeg\")
Photo: Matt GoldingAND ANOTHER THING<\/p>\n