However, those attitudes have changed so much that I believe it would be unconscionable to leave the gargoyles where they are, if the prevailing view of Indigenous people is that they should be removed.

Removing them to storage would not mean they would be "concealed". On the contrary, "storage" is not what it used to be.

The gargoyles have been catalogued and appear on the memorial's online database, and only need to be photographed.

The plaster casts from which they were made have already been catalogued and photographed. If the stone gargoyles are to be placed into the memorial's Mitchell repository, their digital surrogates can take on a life of their own. They can be studied by anyone, anywhere, and would, in fact, be much more visible than at present. Their significance as expressions of past beliefs and ideas would be enhanced, not diminished.

Anne-Marie Condé, Watson

Many arguments have been made over the years to justify the retention of the Aboriginal "gargoyles" at the Australian War Memorial. Perhaps the one most frequently resorted to is that they reflect the values of the era in which they were made.

That is undoubtedly true, but the tens of thousands who visit the memorial each year, viewing the gargoyles without knowledge of this context, must surely leave with the impression that this interpretation of the place of Aboriginal people in our society remains current.

After all, the gargoyles reside in one of the most prominent and hallowed parts of this great institution, and while interpretive material is present throughout the memorial to give a context to the artefacts on display, there is nothing similar to explain the placement of an Aboriginal man and woman among lizards, birds, kangaroos and wombats.

Until now, the War Memorial seems to have been content to accept this "context of history" approach as a reason to leave them in place. Now, however, as the gargoyles have decayed, the do-nothing option is no longer possible. All the gargoyles will be removed and replaced with brand-new ones.

The decision to include, or not to include, newly made Aboriginal faces among the gargoyle fauna is one for our time, and will reflect our present-day values.

Phillip Tardif, Lyneham

Ian Warden's article "Monument like shag on a rock" (Gang-gang, March 3, p8) is an example of recent confusing coverage in your pages of various things that do or will enjoy heritage listings. I have wondered whether anything that simply survives for some time is part of our heritage. Must it merely be old, as this implies? How old? Is it necessary for it to have had a role in one or more historical events?

Should it have become an influential, high-quality, best example, replicated repeatedly with (minor) variations over a long period?

Might it have proved to be a leader in or trigger for a trend or cultural change (that is, in the way we usually do things)? Or does it need to be associated with a major long-term and continuing tradition?

I will welcome an explanation in plain English of what "heritage" means and the basic criteria an item must meet before it gains a listing.

John Temperly, Isaacs

Mick Gentleman's denial that the government took into account the fact David Flannery is a supporter of light rail when it appointed him head of the Heritage Council ("Rail fan to head heritage council", March 3, p1) reminds me of one of Jim Hacker's famous quotes. Hacker asked Sir Humphrey, of some controversial thing, "Has it been denied?" "Yes," said Sir Humphrey. "Then it is true," said Hacker.

The ACT government really has made it clear that it can't justify light rail when it follows up its decision to use the call-in powers with the appointment of someone known to support light rail as head of ACT Heritage Council.

Stan Marks, Hawker

In an attempt to justify the light rail project, Tony Judge (Letters, March 3) drew an analogy with the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It would have been much more relevant if he had drawn upon the example of John Bradfield's earlier engineering contribution to Sydney's infrastructure, comprising the underground railway and the prior electrification and extension of the network into the green fields surrounding Sydney. At the time, most of Sydney's commuting population was well served by the tram network, which covered the inner city.

How silly would it have been if the Sydney's forefathers had gone ahead and linked Campbelltown to Hornsby with a tram network. Can you imagine using a tram to travel those distances in Sydney today? Now, it is just plain stupid to plan a tram network linking Tuggeranong to Gungahlin, the same distance as from Campbelltown to Hornsby. As Graham Downie argued ("Action on public transport needed urgently", March 2, p5), the urgent problem for Canberra is to fix the ACTION bus service.

A. Smith, Farrer

Contrary to the proposed Gungahlin tram, the Sydney Harbour Bridge was a result of visionary, enlightened thinking and engineering in difficult times.

The rationale for the tram doesn't even come close in any comparable terms. The bridge was a response to an absolutely undeniable infrastructural need and to the economic conditions of the time. While not without political controversy, it was not built by the imposition of a minority political ideology on the broader population, as is the basis of the tram proposal. As far as the bridge is concerned, there was no possible engineering alternative then of linking the northern and southern parts of the city. It also provided the broader purpose of linking the coastline of NSW, allowing development in the broader Sydney region and beyond. Nothing like this can be argued for the tram.

It did take decades for the bridge to be paid off. But at least it funded its own costs of construction and operation over those decades and continues to be maintained on that basis. How about the tram? Not only cannot it not cover its own construction costs but the ACT government is planning to squander income derived now from the disposal of public assets, which could, and should be, applied to better public purpose.

Peter Cummins, Monash

For Tony Abbott to expect an improvement in his polling because he has abandoned his Medicare co-payment is like a thief expecting to be rewarded for stopping thieving.

Abbott has made serious errors of judgment, which voters should not ignore, in raising the co-payment in the first place and pursuing it through its many versions.

The best Abbott should get is for his polling to mark time until his next error of judgment.

Bruce Porter, Palmerston

As the latest opinion poll apparently saved Tony Abbott, it appears that who will lead the Liberal Party and be Australia's Prime Minister will be decided each month by about 2000 Australians. These are the people contacted at random by telephone by the polling company, as these people prepare their evening meal. As Malcolm, Julie, Scott and Andrew are too timid to challenge, will they stay home on polling night in case the polling company calls them?

John Davenport, Farrer

Whilst the judicial execution of anyone is not condoned, it is noted that the many letters to the editor on this subject are from those "experts" who refer to Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran as being rehabilitated after 10 years in custody and therefore should not be executed.

Rehabilitation in the correctional field refers to behaviour in a prison setting where rules and behaviour are proscribed.

Rehabilitation must also include abiding by the rules and behaviour when living within a community. It is this second part of rehabilitation that is the hardest to achieve. Those so-called experts out there should well remember that when they refer to one part of rehabilitation whilst ignoring the second part.

Geoff Potts, Holder

To those of us who have long campaigned for the Australian War Memorial to include recognition of Australia's frontier wars, your editorial "War Memorial's Indigenous blind spot" (Times2, February 27, p2) is very encouraging.

It remains only to point out that other countries – for example, New Zealand – have handled the issue of Indigenous resistance much better. It's embarrassing also to be linked with countries which, up to a century later, persist in denying uncomfortable episodes from their past. Does one need to name them? The AWM's current director has long and correctly boasted that he runs "a special place". That is why the AWM needs to address the issue, even if necessitates amending an act of parliament.

Geoff Page, Narrabundah

Your excellent editorial "War Memorial's Indigenous blind spot" (Times2, February 27, p2) concludes "certainly the absence of the frontier wars from the memorial's remit remains troubling and ... it merits wider discussion". Of discussion, there has been plenty. Now is the time for action.

If the Australian War Memorial truly is, as director Brendan Nelson claims, a place for all Australian people, then let the people decide.

For those who feel strongly about this issue, some may choose to wait for some kind of plebiscite.

Others may seize the opportunity to vote with their feet at the Lest We Forget the Frontier Wars March to the memorial next Anzac Day. Led by Ghillar Michael Anderson, leader of the Euahlayi people, national spokesperson for the Sovereign Union movement and one of the founders of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, it will be the fifth annual march.

In previous years, a police line has turned away the march and prevented it from entering the memorial. All other Anzac Day marchers go through, even Turks.

Maybe this year the moral force of the frontier wars marchers will be such that there will be no turning them away and Aboriginal elders will enter the memorial forecourt and there, with gum-tip smoke billowing, Australians, black and white, will stand side by side and share ceremony which honours the dead of frontier wars, too.

What a better time to do this than as part of the centenary of Anzac, when we not only remember the past, but also contemplate the future and ask what forms and meanings another 100 years may bring?

Graeme Dunstan, Kambah

Peter Hartcher's observations about the rise of fascism and threats to freedom ("Fascism the greatest threat", Times2, March3, p4) was refreshing. Regrettably, I suspect in 50 years' time we will look back on this era and wonder why so little was done and the danger ignored. The pre-World War II era and the Cold War are replete with the failure to confront totalitarianism.

Russia, China and Islamic extremists are all fascist in approach, and yet Westerners wilfully ignore them. Russia in its current form, or former guise the Soviet Union, has invaded or underwritten wars, revolutions and takeovers in dozens of countries. China can be brutal with neighbours and is unmistakably totalitarian, and the Islamists enjoy support from our passive response to them (often leftists and feminists are the leaders of this in-effect support for them –Lenin's "useful fools").

M. Gordon, Flynn

Alan Shroot (Letters, March 2) claims among other "facts" that "there was only one instance of a Palestinian being murdered because of his ethnicity". Really? Last year, over a period of several weeks, the Israelis carried out a relentless massive bombardment of the Gaza Strip and killed an estimated several thousand Palestinian civilians. One could call this inadvertent civilian casualties in warfare, butchery, mass murder – whatever. The fact is that the Israelis acted with malicious intent, knowing full well throughout the bombardment that they were killing large numbers of civilians.

Not a single Israeli has been prosecuted for this outrageous crime against humanity – sorry, Palestinians.

Chris Swinbank, Kingston

Recent headlines have been proclaiming Australia Post's parcels and retail business reported only a $98 million first-half profit after tax, down 56 per cent from the same period last year. Apparently the decline was almost entirely driven by a $151m loss in the letters business. Two important points have unfortunately been lost in the pessimistic view of these numbers. Firstly, Australia Post spent during that same year approximately $260m upgrading its Sydney and Melbourne headquarters.

Secondly, it paid its CEO, Ahmed Fahour, a $4.8m bonus, again in the same year. What has Mr Fahour contributed to Australia Post that deserves a bonus of this huge measure?

I can't imagine Australian taxpayers would be happy to give up their daily postal deliveries when these sorts of expenditures impact heavily on the service that we continue to rely on, both in our parcel and letter deliveries.

Alison Chapple, Macquarie

In calling for an immediate ban on smoking, Joe Murphy (Letters, February 27) has, with the stroke of his pen, solved one the biggest public health dilemmas facing governments around the world today.

I'm just curious over whether Joe prefers the approach taken by the US in the early 20th century. The "prohibition" model which targeted alcohol supply and led to increased profits for bootleggers, enabling them to diversify into other areas of crime, or the one it convinced the world to adopt in the 1980s – the "war-on-drugs" model, still popular today, which by targeting consumption has successfully criminalised casual users, impacted the poor and minority groups disproportionately, increased profits for drug traffickers and boosted property crime, cost of insurance, and led to a surge in lawyers, police and Corrections officers. Both approaches have had similar levels of success, namely none.

James Allan, Narrabundah

WANTON DESTRUCTION

How dreadful that Islamic State feels the need to destroy the priceless artefacts in Mosul ("'Priceless, unique' museum artefacts destroyed", February 28, p12). It seems to me if they don't like something or don't understand they either decapitate or smash it to smithereens.

W. Cook, Monash

JOIN THE OTHER SIDE

Given the relative state of our economy, budget, politics, and international cricket and rugby, I suggest we declare ourselves to be the Western Islands of New Zealand.

John Oldfield, Pearce

KIWIS SEEM CONFIDENT

It looks like the Kiwis have backed themselves to win the Cricket World Cup, judging by the number of their 20¢ coins floating around in the currency at present.

Peter Baskett, Murrumbateman, NSW

BUS SERVICE LACKING

The Enlighten festival was on until 9pm on Sunday night, but the ACTION bus service stops running at 8pm from the city every Sunday.

Does ACTION's senior management believe people without cars don't want to go anywhere on Sunday nights?

Dave Kelly, Aranda

EARTH NOT SO BAD

"Too many solar systems substandard, says Hunt" (February 28, p6). Well, I guess we'd better just stay here on Earth.

James Dixon, Holt

GIFT FOR NEWCOMER

It's late in the day, but the ACT's newish Chief Minister deserves a welcoming gift. After much pondering, I think a new lawnmower would fit the bill nicely. Mr Barr could then make himself useful by cutting some of the grass around Canberra that has seemingly been forgotten.

Eric Sharman, Weston Creek

TOO MUCH FLAG-WAVING

I laughed out loud to see Tony Abbott strutting out between not the usual two Australian flags but at least eight; I'm not sure of the number, as I was blinded by the medals to his left. Allthis to announce 300 more troops to be deployed to Iraq. Who is he trying to hoodwink or perhaps emulate?

J. Wyburn, Narrabundah

RAIL COMPARISONS

Tony Judge (Letters, March 3) seeks to compare the Sydney Harbour bridge with Canberra's light rail. Let's keep apples with apples, and compare Canberra's light rail adventure with the Sydney monorail.

Terry Werner, Wright

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).