Waterford uncowed

To write such a piece ("Australians all let us ignore", January 25, p17) in the context of the rising tide of public nationalism is to invite swinging criticism.

Jack is not alone in being worried at the trend toward attaching Australian flags to one's clothing, car, children, missives, and home.

Quietly venturing an opinion to a colleague that the "terrorism" which now seemingly obsesses us has some of its roots back with our own, and particularly United States, foreign policy over several decades, my opinion was attacked not by my interlocutor, but by a nearby person overhearing. The shockingly fiery – dare I say, nationalistic – rant that followed shut down the conversation and imposed an uncomfortable silence on the entire work area for some time.

Could this have happened 20 years ago? Anything's possible, but I suspect not.

Since 2001, there have been strengthening normative influences on political opinion: views too divergent are now not simply "wrong" (if you so decide), but are heretical and even unpatriotic. Such an atmosphere can very easily cow all but the most committed and thick-skinned pundits.

Jack Waterford is not cowed. Rather, he's a seasoned, battle-scarred old bull that often likes to sit in the shade under a tree, inclining his rough head to look at the birdies. But beware, Jack might still come at you headlong — and we are all the better for the resulting collision.

Ross Kelly, Monash

I heartily concurred with Jack Waterford's unrestrained diatribe against the confection of "events, entertainments, ceremonies and cringe-making rituals of our nationality" ("Australians all let us ignore", January 26, p17) which have arisen to fill Australia Day.

That's until I got to "hymns to the triumph of the white man over every other race to which Australia is home".

I did not know if Waterford had fallen prey to that insidious disease, white man's guilt, or whether he was celebrating his close relationship with the Indigenes of his home town, Goodooga. Either way, it was a bit over the top.

As I read on I came to, "A better anniversary ... might allow some unambiguous recognition of Australian (including Indigenous) history and achievement" and realised that it was the latter.

Waterford, as all those who think that changing the date of our national day will silence the "Invasion Day" chorus, is misled. It would merely become D (Division) Day or Indignation Day or Whitey's Day or some such.

He did get back on track in his ultimate sentence, celebrating the "national characteristic of particular scepticism for pious ... bullshit".

Gary J. Wilson, MacGregor

John Stanhope (Forum, January 24) uses the term loosely as do most people – Australia needs to be very clear on what its migration and refugee policies are and how to implement them.

Many people who come to this country illegally by boat or overstay a plane entry visa, are not asylum seekers. They are young men from fragile states selected and paid for by their extended families to come to this country (also to Germany and Britain, among others) to get accepted as refugees and then help their extended family follow them as migrants. They speak good English and are well educated. If the countries they target accept them, the expensive education done at considerable expense by aid programs, will be wasted, and the country will be denuded of essential people, like doctors, engineers and teachers, to re-build their countries.

We should focus on real refugees fleeing wars, violence and famines, who are not educated and don't speak English. We need to educate them here. Within one generation they will be well assimilated if we do so.

We should not take the mean road and take educated people from fragile states that desperately need them. We need to assist the stabilising and building of fragile states so people see no need to leave, not encourage the best people to leave.

Caroline Fitzwarryne, Yarralumla

Jon Stanhope's article ("Shorten must end Labor's two- faced asylum stance, January 24, Forum p1) is offensive. He wrote "the asylum seekers caught up in [Australia's asylum system] ... is [sic] a victim of policies devised ... by a Labor government".

No intelligent person could regard asylum seekers as victims of Australia. Australia, at enormous cost, has given them at least temporary asylum, housed them, fed them, clothed them, educated them, provided health care, and benefited them in other ways. It has harmed none.

Stanhope's use of terminology such as "arbitrary and indefinite incarceration of children, especially in isolated, remote and desolate detention camps" is dishonest exaggeration. In regard to community access, these children are better off than many Australian children living in isolated townships or homesteads. "Unauthorised arrivals" not yet permitted to enter the rest of Australia are not detained. They are like visitors to a zoo. Visitors are not permitted to enter enclosures; thus they are locked out, but not detained.

Australia's refusal to give "unauthorised arrivals" preference over other asylum seekers, in relation to granting citizenship benefits worth several hundred thousand dollars per family, is sensible and ethical.

Bob Salmond, Melba

Elizabeth Farrelly tells me I "do not have a right not to be offended" ("Why it's vital to have the right to offend", Times 2, January 22). With all due respect to Ms Farrelly, that's poppycock.

I consider myself under no obligation to take offence at anything whatever and I defy anyone to prevent me from not doing so whenever I choose.

It seems to me that if people would only try exercising this right more often, the world would be a much happier place.

David Wilson, Braddon

Jack Waterford ("Captain without a plan risks mutiny", January 24) writes at length, like many other pundits, about the government's lack of a plan and also about the Prime Minister's leadership problems.

It is quite clear that the government does have a plan. It is to help its rich and powerful mates and donors to become even richer, while convincing the rest of us that some of this extra wealth will trickle down.

Max Brown, Mawson

I could have told Gillian King ("Residents outraged playground under budget threat", January 24) that there is no point in expecting any explanation from or community consultation with the ACT government in a situation such as she and Narrabundah residents find themselves in regarding the Rocky Knob playground.

In 2012, the residents of Lascelles Circuit, Kambah, having specifically bought our homes opposite a peaceful, tree-lined park and playing fields, noticed two ugly shipping containers dumped between the two playing fields.

Inquiries to Territory and Municipal Services elicited the response that "no community consultation was required" with those most affected, the home owners, for the provision of a race track for the radio-controlled car club. The club was to be allowed to expand the use of the shipping containers for use as a grandstand, enclose the paved area with a fence, exclude anyone other than members, and operate the screaming radio-controlled cars and loudspeaker announcements every second Sunday morning, 100 metres from our bedroom windows.

We were outraged too, but to no avail. Fight the good fight, Gillian and the other mothers, and good luck.

At least you have had some warning via the "official" notice, unlike the residents of Lascelles Circuit, who were given no notice and no comeback for a noisy option that could easily have been located out of town and not in a park in a residential street.

Helen Vaughan-Roberts, Wanniassa

I'd always thought that the republic issue was an insignificant one, an unnecessary change to our constitutional framework in the hope of some marginal symbolic benefit.

Then I saw the Prime Minister's announcement that an Australian knighthood was to be granted to Prince Phillip, and I reconsidered.

Isn't it ludicrous that Prince Phillip is deemed more worthy of an honour than any of the 22million Australians who the Order of Australia knighthoods were (apparently) meant to have been reserved for?

What does it say about the Prime Minister's opinion of Australians as a people, and our nation's image of ourselves, if he could not find a single worthy recipient in this entire country, besides Angus Houston, to give this honour to?

And don't these questions only arise more forcefully when considering who should be Australia's head of state, which is surely the greatest honour this country can grant to anyone? What does it say of Australia that such a position is inherited by foreigners, with no input from the Australian people?

I am therefore proud to say that, as of Australia Day 2015, I am a republican. My thanks to Tony Abbott for coming up with such a persuasive example to show me how wrong I have been for so many years.

Joshua Smith, Gordon

If anything will bring the question of an Australian republic back on to the public agenda, it is this ridiculous revival of knighthoods.

There was never any reason for it. The whole idea of monarchy and knighthoods is anachronistic.

If Australia deludes itself that it is grown up, it cannot continue that and still support monarchy and the privileges attached to it. As for awarding one to the Duke of Edinburgh, what on earth was Abbott thinking?

We have a highly respected system of Australian honours. Reintroduction of knighthoods debases those awards and the deserving Australians who have been recognised by them.

Robin Gibson, Campbell

Tony Abbott says Australia is a "beacon of hope and optimism" but not if he stays as Prime Minister.

What a damper he put on a day of celebration to make another of his ludicrous "captain's calls" and award Prince Philip a knighthood.

How his cabinet and party can continue to accept the way he has been leading the government is hard to understand. They should ignore his cry about not changing horses mid-stream and get rid of him quickly.

He became leader of his party by one vote, got into government by chanting Julia Gillard's lie about a carbon tax while maintaining his own lies, and with numerous back flips and inability to sell any coherent message, languishes way down in the polls.

As for the knighthoods, you have to ask why people are accepting them when they all have the highest level of the Australian awards which I would have thought are demeaned by the reintroduction of this, so called, higher award.

Meanwhile Bill Shorten, who has been missing in action for any sensible comment or policy since he took over the leadership of the Labor Party, has suggested a reawakening of the republic debate.

Eric Hodge, Pearce

The decision to retain one of the Dickson Towers buildings ("Government ordered to keep one of three Dickson Towers, forcing rethink of plans for Northbourne Avenue", January 24, p1) drew a response from the executive director of the Property Council, Catherine Carter. Her judgment that the buildings are "more than ugly, they are unhealthy and unliveable" probably owes more to the lack of maintenance and upgrading than to being "outmoded and dogged with architectural and aesthetic errors" which she doesn't identify.

I would suggest that this description could apply to any 50-year-old housing units which have been neglected by their owners to the extent that these must have been.

G.C.Shannon, O'Malley

The blocking of the $7 co-payment by the ALP and Greens is appalling. Eighty per cent of the population are bulk-billed and pay nothing to see their GP. The remaining 20per cent are between $40 and $50 out-of-pocket for each visit to their GP.

If we are forced to pay such large "co-payments" then surely the 80 per cent can afford to pay $7 which for the majority is really peanuts. All that was required were exemptions for people on certain benefit cards.

There ought to be a level playing field so everyone should be treated the same by scrapping bulk-billing for the 80per cent or ensuring the 20per cent can get bulk-billed.

In addition the government is losing hundreds of millions of dollars from self-funded retirees whose pensions are not taxable income.

David Roberts, Dickson

FILLIP FOR REPUBLICANS

Tony Abbott, you have just given a huge Philip to the Australian republic movement.

Susan McCarthy, Chapman

NOT SO ODD

I thought the knighthood to Prince Philip was "odd" but, on reflection, the Duke of Edinburgh Awards program has done much good for Australian youth. I also defend the Prime Minister's right to so award the AK. It must remain "the PM's gift".

R. C. Warn, Griffith

FOCUS ON THE JOB

Memo to Tony Abbott: Some things are worth the political pain, for example, defending freedom of speech (which you failed to do), but a knighthood to Prince Philip is not one of them. There remains a great deal of work to do, so please focus on the job at hand.

H. Ronald, Jerrabomberra

OUT OF TOUCH

It seems Australians will need to wait longer still for a Prime Minister in touch with the people of this country. Why does the top job attract people so obsessed with what they think and not what we think?

Chris Mackay, Kambah

SURELY A JOKE

Before we get our knickers in a knot over Tony Abbott awarding Prince Philip a knighthood, let's consider that in all likelihood he intended this to be a joke. Tony's sense of humour may not be everyone's cup of tea, but on occasion he can be very funny.

Ian Webster, Curtin

COLONIAL TRINKET

If Queen Victoria had been offered a colonial knighthood to a prince and royal duke, she would have laughed, just for once.

James Jupp, Hughes

HARDLY AUSTRALIAN

Sir Prince Philip of Oz? Team Australia? Give me a break.

Paul Morton, Weston

WHITE STRIPES ARTISTIC

I enjoyed the joke where the person who had defaced Canberra with graffiti complained when someone else had a go with a white roller. I thought the stripes were well-proportioned, creative, thought-provoking and, in their simplicity, a nice contrast to the mess that was there before.

Ted Lilley, Aranda

NO FORCE NEEDED

"Majura Park drivers forced to take a detour to get cheap petrol" (January 22, p3). How dreadful! How could this happen in well-run Canberra? Wait a minute, though. Who "forced" them? Surely this was their own choice, in an effort to save a dollar or two.

Alvin Hopper, Dickson

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).