She moves, it runs; she doesn’t, it’s pushed

I am a little baffled at all the fuss over Anika Wells and both her trip to New York and subsequent scrutiny of every trip (“Wells charged taxpayers to take family to Thredbo”, December 7). Our ministers work hard and are required to travel, usually without family, which is why family are allowed to join them sometimes. Journalists would better serve us by redirecting their scrutiny to the government procurement contracts and why taxpayers paid $90,000 for three airfares to New York. I have heard no explanation for how such an amount could be even possible when the government would have contracts with both travel agencies and airlines to get value for money. The government business is very lucrative and would be much sought after, but clearly taxpayers are still being taken for a ride, and it’s not to New York. Elizabeth Darton, Lane Cove West

What is the motive behind trying to find something, anything, on Anika Wells? Is it because she is at the forefront of the social media ban? If Sussan Ley joins in the criticism, in this case totally unwarranted, it might be enough to swing my vote. Jenny Greenwood, Hunters Hill

For all those correspondents who are so distressed by Minister Wells’ travel expenses, just compare it with the US Vice President JD Vance, who had all of Disneyland closed for a day so that his family could go there privately, and apparently also had water released from an Ohio lake into a river to enable a more exciting birthday boating and kayaking experience for his family and friends. If Australian politicians ever start behaving like that, then your complaints will have relevance. Mark Berg, Caringbah South

Uneasy riders

Injury statistics remain to hover on the trauma associated for (most often) younger riders of e-bikes (“‘Madness’ over e-bikes drives spike in trauma”, December 7). The hidden cost to the elderly? E-bikes overburdened with multiple riders and often surfboards, travelling at speed along footpaths and roads, ignoring any type of rule or consideration, and providing much anxiety for many elderly and disabled people with slower reaction times. Many of the elderly are intimidated now even to walk within shopping areas. (Theft becoming an issue in many places.) Education booklets, licences and strict rules of behaviour (e.g. restrictions to one rider and surfboard) could easily be administered to ensure safety for all. Janice Creenaune, Austinmer

Basic instinct is right

I applaud Cranbook’s decision to ban its students from owning smartphones and instead directing parents to equip their primary aged children with basic phones (“Phone use ‘boundaries’ set for junior private school”, December 7). A basic phone is a useful tool of communication, particularly between parents and their children. A quick call from Samantha to let her mum know that she will be late home from school because she missed the bus can save a lot of parental anxiety. A smartphone, by comparison, can open a Pandora’s box to pornography and the toxic rantings of racists, misogynists and a varied cast of nutcases. It also gives access to a vast message board where kids can post hateful things about other kids and/or read hateful things that others are posting about them. Young minds don’t need that stuff. Perhaps Christmas 2025 would be a good time to put a non-smartphone under the tree for young Justin or Samantha. Mike Reddy, Vincentia

The social media ban for under 16s and a ban on smartphones with at least one private school leading the way can’t come soon enough. I saw a problem 10 years ago when devices were introduced as an additional resource for learning (it quickly replaced other resources, including teachers). It has grown out of the control that we are now trying to get back. Jenny Greenwood, Hunters Hill

Foot off the gas