The letter from T.W. Campbell (Letters, January 28) skipped over the issues many resent. The big ticket item is the number of recipients of honours who have done their paid jobs. Yes, many have done an excellent job. But they've still done their job and been remunerated for said job.

Further, there is community resentment around the number of "high-level" awardees – for example, High Court judges, vice-chancellors, former politicians and political staffers.

The current system needs more than quotas for women. It needs a complete overhaul. No band-aids, chuck it out and start again. Have one medal – say, the Australia Medal – to address issues raised by Nicolas Gruen in your paper last week, regarding a "class system" where High Court judges, vice-chancellors, etc, are made ACs and those who perform voluntary work receive OAMs.

It is hard to know why there are separate medals for Defence personnel, emergency services – including fire, police and ambulance services – when there are no specific medals for others who undertake important work (such as nurses, child and aged care workers, etc).

Helen M. Goddard, Turner

I am again surprised by the unrepresentative nature of the Australia Day honours list. The list again contained very few social scientists; it included many people whose contributions occurred (and sometimes even ceased) many years ago; it included too many Australians who no longer live in Australia, who would not be known to many younger Australians, and who have in some cases long stopped making a contribution to the national good.

Trevor Wilson, Chifley

Australia claims to be a classless society, the land of the fair go, but even a cursory examination of each official honours list shows what a delusion that is. As Nicholas Gruen ("We are awarding the Order of Australia to the wrong people", canberratimes.com.au, January 24) points out, most of the highest awards are given to those doing "little more than their job. And the higher the job's status, the higher the reward."

The hierarchy of our Australian awards goes back to the Imperial award system that operated pre-Whitlam. In the UK, as parodied in Yes Minister, senior public servants routinely received a series of awards starting with the CMG (Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George – or "Call Me God") through the KCMG ("Kindly Call Me God") to the GCMG ("God Calls Me God").

Knighthoods may be a thing of the past in Australia (despite Tony Abbott's best efforts) but the tradition of keeping the shiniest gongs (ACs and AMs) to those seated at the high table whilst allowing a few crumbs (OAMs) to fall to the deserving poor has continued.

It is in this fashion that our politicians expect to be rewarded after their parliamentary duties are complete. Thus Senator Busby's resignation from Parliament was followed by his appointment as consul-general to Chicago. And Senator Brandis explained his appointment to the role of high commissioner to the UK as a tradition that plum foreign service jobs are given to those that "have the standing and authority of having been senior members of the cabinet".

No need for any messy selection on merit process.

Mike Reddy, Curtin

Brian Hungerford (Letters, January 26) is not correct. The Spanish in 1606 named the main island of Vanuatu as "Australia del Espiritu Santo" not the present day Australia. Their error was to believe that at long last they had discovered "Terra Australis".

It was the Romans in the second century who created "Terra Australis", Latin for southern land, for the undiscovered land in the southern hemisphere needed to balance Europe on the world globe. Terra Australis was depicted on 1540 French maps with its coastline just south of the East Indies (now Indonesia). The Dutch explorer Abel Tasman in 1644 visited this land and called it "New Holland".

When the 1788 settlement in Sydney was founded, the name New Holland was retained for it, while the south polar continent continued to be called Australia. The explorer Matthew Flinders in 1804 called the land Australia, saying it was "more agreeable to the ear, and an assimilation to the names of the other great portions of the earth".

The first time Australia was used by officials was in 1817 by Governor Macquarie. In 1824 the British Admiralty agreed that the continent should be known as Australia.

Paul Fitzwarryne, Yarralumla

I am a white Australian who would like to see the date of Australia Day changed because of its sensitivity for Indigenous Australians. My problem has always been what date should it be changed to. Two dates come to mind: the day in 1962 when the Menzies government amended the constitution to give Indigenous Australians the right to vote; or, February 13 when Kevin Rudd apologised to Indigenous Australians "for indignities and degradation", declaring it was time to start "righting the wrongs of the past".

Both these occasions show that white Australians had matured enough to accept Indigenous Australians as their equals.

Robyn Chen, Mawson

Jack Waterford contributes to the Australia Day debate with a couple of howlers ("Shorten could own big day", January 26, Forum, p1). He says that Australia became Australia on January 1, 1901, and became a nation on that day. Not so. Our land was known as Australia long before 1901. What occurred on January 1, 1901, was the creation of a new federated British colony – the Commonwealth of Australia. And the evolution of Australia, the nation, took place gradually over the course of the 20th century.

Frank Marris, Forrest

In her informed reply to my January 18 letter about water tanks, Robyn Coghlan (Letters, January 25) discusses other impacts of human activities on water flow. However none of this negates the message of my letter; that Canberrans who use water tanks are seriously misguided if they believe this helps the environment.

In part answer to the important final question of her letter; if the growing population of Canberra all install water tanks to water their gardens, then future downstream water flows will be less than would otherwise be the case.

In the spirit of WA farmers donating hay to drought-stricken farmers in the east, I suggest Canberra water tank users could also help out by letting their water go down the drains. Those considering installing tanks might instead use the money saved by not doing so to support research into water use and the environment or other worthy causes.

Max Brown, Mawson

The Nine network failed badly with its coverage of the Australian Open. For example, import John McEnroe sounded and looked throughout as if he was jet lagged.

Then we saw Naomi Osaka's otherwise triumphal final culminate in an embarrassing segment in which she was subjected to a most patronising series of questions about her parents and background. To her credit, Osaka fended them off with dignity but she was clearly not impressed.

Worse, during the women's doubles semi-final featuring Australia's Sam Stosur and China's Zhang Shiao, the all-male commentary team led by Jim Courier and Lleyton Hewitt decided during the vital second set to start talking about anything except what was happening on court, including which celebrities they had played with. These unprofessional digressions over at least two games were foisted on viewers even during serves — normally the tennis commentator's worst sin. Oh, there was also a muffled giggle when the word "partners" was dropped in relation to Stosur and Zhang. "We know what you mean," one of the boofheads sniggered. I was never a great lover of Seven's coverage, but Nine's effort this year left me wishing for a fast return of serve to Seven.

Eric Hunter, Cook

A. Whiddett is pleased Maria Sharapova ("Shriekapova") was defeated by "the mercifully quiet Ashleigh Barty". I couldn't agree more. While Ms Sharapova is probably the loudest of players on the professional tennis circuit, sometimes shrieking at 100 decibels or more, there are several other players, including some men, who are also very loud shriekers or grunters. For example, Victoria Azarenka has been recorded at about 92 decibels. Roger Federer is notable for his lack of grunting: he does not need to grunt to win.

It is commonly thought this very loud shrieking or grunting is a form of gamesmanship, disrupting the opponent's attention. Whether it is deliberate or not, it is time tennis officials had another, more persistent, attempt to put a stop to loud shrieking and grunting. Apart from being distracting and unpleasant for the players, it is unpleasant for the spectators – especially those at the court, but also for TV viewers.

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

Channel Nine has now wrapped up its first broadcast of the Australian Open with a number of viewers unhappy about some of the camera angles. One of the most annoying was the view at ground level from behind the server. Viewers had no hope of seeing whether the ball landed in or out of court as the server and the net obstructed the view at that level. This view was used frequently during the tournament and especially the Osaka/Kvitova final on Saturday night, but not during the Djokovic/Nadal match on Sunday night. This raises the disturbing question of why only the female players were subjected to this unbecoming view, and not the males? It's an unacceptable view for watching tennis at all levels.

Frances Cornish, Spence

Chris Mobbs (Letters, January 25) makes a good point. Andrew Barr and co seem obsessed with increasing "signalisation" of our roads. Many of the growing number of new light installations might well be useful for the short morning and evening periods when traffic is heaviest but do nothing to increase traffic flow at other times, in fact they have the opposite effect. This defect could easily be overcome by programming the lights for those peak periods then reverting to give way signs for the other times. This would be particularly beneficial for the new left turn off-ramps from Tuggeranong Parkway to both Cotter Road and Hindmarsh Drive where the simple slip roads have been replaced with left turn lights. At most times of the day and night motorists can be seen queuing at these lights when there is little or no traffic to stop them continuing. Or are these deliberate ploys to try to force people into public transport?

Colin Smeal, Holder

I confess I love the Gillette ad. It is a well-crafted sales pitch (and who doesn't love a good story?), cleverly dressed as a reminder to all men that respect is the anchor point for male behaviour, that bullying and sexism are not acceptable.

Corporations have been very adept for a long time at recognising that they can co-mingle a good campaign with social activism.

Take those Thai insurance ads selling the virtue of good deeds and education. We can all be a little cynical about Gillette's motives, but does it really matter? Maybe its chief executive and board actually have a social conscience.

Nor does the ad offend me. Social and mainstream media has been awash with affronted men (and women) complaining about a multi-gazillion-dollar corporation lecturing men about behaviour. Haven't they been to school? Don't they have parents and coaches? I tell them to go find a mirror.

You could only be offended if you are a man who behaves badly or you defend a man's right to be a bully. I'm certainly no saint, but I'm neither of those stereotypes. I'm far more offended by sexist bullies of either gender (and there are plenty on both sides).

Gillette – the best an ad can be.

Mark Slater, Melba

I would be the first to ensure politicians are well renumerated for their difficult job but the recent discussion of what limousine will suit their future needs continues the disdain the public holds for the pollies.

The rest of Canberra manages to get to work or appointments by various means including taxi, uber, bus, bike or on foot. If the politicians did the same they might learn something.

We, in Canberra, through the seasons, pass the queues of Comcars idling to run their airconditioning or heaters stinking the air around them.

No thought is given to the chosen Mercs and Beemers as to climate change.

Other state government fleets used to use an engine of maximum size of four cylinders and are now moving to hybrid or chargeable. Money is obviously not the problem with the purchase – just buying an oversize, inefficient, polluting transport to carry one politician.

It's a disgrace.

Ray Barnett, Ainslie

PICK A DAY, ANY DAY

Why don't we all have the option of picking our own Australia day, date. Legislate for an employee to have the right to any day off in a calendar year they choose, to celebrate the creation of our great nation.

Matt Ford, Crookwell, NSW

THIS WOULD WORK...

Of all the suggestions I've seen for the inevitable new date for Australia Day, only one carries absolutely no political baggage, real or potential. Only one is totally free of everything but recognition of a uniquely Australian icon: Wattle Day.

Bring it on.

Fred Pilcher, Kaleen

PM'S PIECE OFFENSIVE

Scott Morrison's jingoistic piece ("This is why we observe our day on January 26", January 26, Forum, p1) is not only highly offensive to this land's Indigenous people, but also misleading, arrogant and self serving.

I much prefer Brian Hungerford's version of Australia's "second chapter" as outlined in his letter (Letters, January 26).

John Rodriguez, Florey

WIND-POWERED SHIP

For Scott Morrison, avowed fossil fuel advocate, the irony his multimillion-dollar "re-enactment" is wind powered would have "escaped" his comprehension ("Australia, we have much more important issues to tackle than boardies and thongs", Forum, January 26, p10). To Morrison's chagrin, critics will note, no coal was needed in this Endeavour.

Albert M. White, Queanbeyan, NSW

SLIPPERY SLOPE

With $12 million for a "re-enactment" of Cook's first voyage around Australia, which didn't take place, and dress standards in citizenship ceremonies what will be next? Tougher laws for flag burners or requiring the wearing of baseball caps with Make Australia Great slogans?

Thos Puckett, Ashgrove, SA

IRONY HERE

There may be some strong symbolism in commissioning the copy of HM Bark Endeavour to circumnavigate Australia.

The original Endeavour was launched in 1764 as the collier Earl of Pembroke.

That is, she was a bulk cargo ship designed to carry coal.

Gary J. Wilson, Macgregor

LIFE IMITATES ART

"To lose one minister, Mr Morrison, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose three looks like carelessness".

Apologies to Oscar Wilde and The Importance of Being Earnest for this misquote.

Geof Murray, Ngunnawal

TREND SPOTTING

Trending in the ACT #polliepot ("Which ACT politicians have tried cannabis, MDMA and acid?", canberratimes.com.au, January 25).

Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook, NSW

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 or fewer words. 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).