Commenting on the story: Marshall dealt a blow as pendulum swings to Labor

With Machiavellian grins or mopping of tears, the key characters go through the same melodrama each time electoral boundaries are readjusted.

It’s a set-piece because the long term outcome will always be a Labor or a Liberal government.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. A variation of proportional representation (the system used to elect the upper house) would more accurately reflect the wishes of voters.

For example, if we still wish to have 47 lower house MPs, we could have seven electorates electing six MPs and one electorate electing 5 MPs. There are many permutations and number combinations.

If there was genuine concern about unfairness, and not mere crocodile tears, our two major political parties would introduce legislation to bring this about.

But they won’t. Why? It’s because this much fairer system would guarantee the election of independents and small parties in larger numbers than is currently the case. And the major parties will do almost anything to ensure that doesn’t happen.

So when this is all over, in eight years’ time Liberal and Labor Party B-grade actors will return to the stage with the same rehearsed routines and the same hackneyed lines. – Sandra Kanck

Marshall will be a one-term government.  

The harm Knoll was seen to have precipitated with the new planning code not being implemented and strangling development in country areas and now the looming scandal in transport. There are a lot of reparations to be achieved in less than two years. – Janet Williams

Commenting on the story: Voices from lockdown: Life inside the Thebarton Cluster quarantine

Quarantine is necessary but ten minutes to pack is not enough.

Also the situation needs to be explained to people, especially to those of a non-English speaking background and/or traumatic past. Interpreters should be used when necessary. – Margaret Dingle

Commenting on the story: Subdivision bid for historic LeCornu

Why does making money seem to be the most important reason for allowing developers to be able to remove significant trees and historic sites?

Look at what a gem Partridge House is. Years ago we almost lost it to ‘development’.

We need to keep our historic properties for all to enjoy. History is important, and so are huge trees. – Sue Erickson

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.