Outside all that Dr Soo is just a bloody good GP. We need more health professionals with the same kind of non-judgemental dedication to wellbeing.

In contrast, we have a different kind of woman who decides that if you have a public platform (which she has) and put on a certain hat (in her case a religious one) you are entitled to say what you like about people, even when damaging and hurtful.

She is entitled to her own private beliefs but it is damaging to impose them on others in the public arena.

I am a heterosexual woman and a practising Christian.

The views that have been expressed do not correlate with my, or many of my friend's, views of Christianity. I have no concerns about people with different views, ideologies and sexual preferences just as long as they are people who care for others and are tolerant.

I applaud Dr Soo for her stance on this issue.

Australia Day 2021 and yet another award given to someone who will be known to cause controversy. Is this deliberate? Last year it was Bettina Arndt, this year Margaret Court.

Margaret Court is a concern. To give an award to anyone who espouses a right to religious freedom and/or peddles teachings that incite division that is hurtful, harmful and disrespectful to LGBTQIA Australians, their families and friends is offensive.

I think the panel which decides on Australia Day recipients truly needs to be in keeping with 21st century values. Their brief needs to be overhauled and those peddling their own ideologies removed.

GP Clara Tuck Meng Soo says that the decision to award Margaret Court a Companion of Australia medal "promotes discrimination" (GP returns medal over Court honour", January 24, p5).

By doing so she is advocating that LGBTQ people and their supporters have the right to stop others from having views contrary to theirs and that is blatant discrimination.

Margaret Court was awarded the Order of Australia in 2007 for her sporting prowess and her services to tennis; this should not be a barrier for her to receive any further awards for whatever reason.

As we allegedly live in a democracy Dr Tuck Meng Soo is perfectly entitled to return her own award of the Order of Australia in protest, however it appears to be grandstanding and somewhat petulant on her behalf to do so.

I for one will not be shedding too many tears.

Dr Clara Tuck Meng Soo's comments on ABC radio and on TV are inappropriate, inaccurate and misleading.

They are inappropriate because she is trying to pressure the government into denying Margaret Court a well-deserved award purely because of her anti-gay stance. Soo's lack of tolerance is un-Australian.

It is inaccurate because Ms Court is not being rewarded for her comments but for a lifetime of service to her community and her outstanding tennis career.

It is also misleading, because she compares a biblical command given for all time with ancient Jewish practices not even commanded, and with no relevance today.

The journalist who leaked the news that Margaret Court was to be awarded an AC in the Australia Day honours list has done a great disservice to their profession. The award has been made not only for Ms Court's prowess on the tennis court and through that for being a wonderful ambassador for the sport and for this great nation but more probably for her services to her community where she has been a pastor in her church for over 30 years.

The fact Ms Court does not agree with same-sex marriage is understandable and she is more than entitled to voice her opinion.

However it is disappointing to note that some members of the LBGTIQ community are so bigoted as to heap opprobrium on her and return awards which they have earned in their own right.

Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of our democracy and the somewhat pathetic attitude of certain elements within our society towards Ms Court is far from the Australian norm.

Until we find a different date to celebrate Australia Day it will continue to be a contentious, divisive occasion that causes offence to our first peoples.

January 26 doesn't even have much relevance to Australians living outside NSW. Their European-era settlements did not begin when Arthur Phillip planted his flag at Sydney Cove.

Federation Day is an obvious alternative, but its date on January 1 is problematic. May 1 marks the date on which Australians ceased to be British subjects: something worth celebrating?

Republic Day would be ideal but, sadly, we're not there yet.

Wattle Day, September 1, honours our national floral emblem. Centred on a symbol that comes directly from our land and grows across the whole continent, it therefore has meaning for all Australians. As an early marker of spring and one of the first plants to regenerate after fire, wattle signifies renewal; an appropriate focus for a national day.

Wattle Day's timing at the start of spring is handy for a long weekend; it offers built-in symbolism; and it's consistent with our national colours. A date worth considering?

In the interests of finding a better date for Australia Day we could choose Wattle Day, September 1, long celebrated for its essential Australian character. In the interests of finding better reasons to celebrate Australia Day we could, on this changed date, amend our constitution to establish Australia as a self-governing republic, recognise our 40,000-years-plus human heritage and include a place in government for Aboriginal culture and values.

Could making Margaret Court (a Pentecostal minister) a Companion of the Order of Australia turn out to have been the equivalent of Tony Abbot knighting Prince Phillip?

If Australia Day serves one good purpose, it certainly exposes our national myths to fresh scrutiny based on actual research and facts. The article "January 26: Interlude or critical moment" (January 24, p2), imbedded in which were observations by lawyer/author Richard Travers, is a case in point.

I found much common purpose with Mr Travers and the article's author as they expounded upon shortcomings in our habit of recognising January 26 as the day on which we recognise our Australian nationhood. It was when they linked the 1967 referendum with Indigenous citizenship that they became more creative with historical truth.

It was on January 26, 1949, that the Chifley Government's 1948 introduction of Australian citizenship took effect. On that day all British subjects resident in Australia were deemed to be Australian citizens. That included me, who had been born in Melbourne in 1946, and my father who had migrated to Australia from Scotland many years earlier.

The class of resident "British subject" always included those who were both naturalised or native born, the latter of which certainly included all indigenous inhabitants (whether they knew it or approved of this status). It was a delightfully inclusive gesture and marked a significant step towards our eventual independence, completed under the Hawke Government in the 1980s.

January 26 is tainted by a decision to focus on the arrival of our first migrants (not all willing) over 200 years ago. For myself, I still prefer to message conveyed on January 26, 1949, as it is much closer to what we want for Australia today.

Does any reader know of any other country that celebrates its national day on the date it was colonised rather than gained its independence? It must seem incredible to the rest of the world. Talk about the ultimate cultural cringe. And no wonder those of us whose disadvantage and exclusion can be seen to begin on that day in 1788 mourn on January 26. Why is it so hard to change the date?

On the day Cricket Australia had the "balls" to do the right thing about Australia Day, we have a Prime Minister who demonstrates his understanding of this issue by saying those aboard the First Fleet had had a bad day too.

Congratulations Margaret Court. Your response to the cancel-culture deplorables shows, yet again, why you are such a great champion.

Congratulations to those to be awarded Australia Day Honours, headed by Margaret Court; a true champion. Worthy recipients all. One could be forgiven for surmising Australia Day must be imminent as the "chattering classes" are in overdrive and clearly not supportive of the occasion. Will we see them at work on January 26?

Putting aside the controversy about Margaret Court's views, just what has she done in the past few years - in addition to her original considerable sporting achievements - to merit an AC?

We should celebrate Australia Day only when we become a republic. Mr Turnbull made the republic dream a mirage with his known ineffectiveness in everything he touches.

Why not simply replace the Union Jack with the Indigenous flag? The red, black and gold flag is a marvellous design, just as are the stars of the Southern Cross from our existing flag.

I am not going to enter into the Australia Day debate. But does this generation seriously think their values and beliefs will be the norm in 30, 100 or 200 years?

When lecturing us about the First Fleet's "12 ships", was the PM was getting muddled up with the 12 Days of Christmas?

Cricketer Dan Christian tweeted "read the room Mr Prime Minister" ("Scott Morrison draws fire over Australia Day comment," Jan 23). "Read the room" is becoming to be the catch-phrase of 2021. It seems to be code for, "Don't tell people anything your critics don't want them to hear".

It doesn't really matter what date Australian citizens celebrate their national day the indigenous people of this land had first claim. The rest of us are descendants of boat people and now plane people.

If the First Fleet had landed on July 26 rather than January 26 (on its second attempt), not very many people would be so bothered about changing the date of Australia Day. People just want to hang on to a summer public holiday.