In seats where bushfires and floods had led to Morrison making himself hated, Labor's vote went up spectacularly, and in some of them the sitting Liberal was thrown out. At the same time, the new Labor Premier's own electorate went from marginal to one of the safest in the whole state.

As for COVID, NSW is simply the latest and last to reject Morrison's mismanagement and let-it-rip approach. The Liberals have vanished from Western Sydney, which suffered the most from their use of Trumpish economic theory in a medical situation.

In every mainland state, and federally, either Labor was handsomely re-elected by opposing Morrison, or the Liberals were thrown out thanks to him. The only Coalition survival is in Tasmania, where the Liberal State government had flipped Morrison the bird by locking down almost as tightly as WA, then profited from that at its own State election.

And yet Morrison remains in Parliament. He hangs around like Tony Abbott did, but doesn't even have Abbott's motive of revenge. Now that the voters of NSW have emphatically embraced the idea of a fresh start, it's time the Liberals did the same. They have to get rid of Morrison and denounce the policies of their party's right wing, because that stuff is not what voters want.

Grateful thanks to incoming NSW premier Chris Minns for his statesman-like acceptance speech, challenging governments per se to govern with respect, as against character assassination of opponents and hollow blame games. At least one Labor leader stands tall with his respectful and personal acknowledgement of outgoing Premier Dominic Perrottet.

As Mr Minns so professionally said that it can be done, if there is a will. This certainly accords with the majority mood of Australians who are fed up with nasty politics and have been demanding less divisive and crass political theatre - not just hollow promises, but actually walking the talk.

Let's hope that the incoming NSW government colleagues will honour and support Mr Minns positive modus operandi.

I enjoyed reading Jack Waterford's informative article on the coming referendum in Saturday's paper, but I take issue with his assertion that a "no" vote will come mainly from people born before 1967. We are the ones among "the 91 per cent of the population" who voted 56 years ago in favour of counting the Aboriginal people as citizens.

We are also the ones who experienced the influx of migrants after WWII. My first job was in the Immigration Department in Sydney. I worked in the Aliens' Registration section (non-British migrants had to carry identity cards). I quickly realised that these people were no different from we Australians. And it did not take many years for everyone else to come to the same conclusion.

So we elderly Australian-born voters, and the children of the original migrants (few of their parents would still be with us) who had fled the tragedy of post-War Europe, are not likely to be against steps toward reconciliation. We have seen or experienced integration for ourselves. It is my guess that opposition is being stirred up by people like Peter Dutton. We could also see it being stirred up by people like the vicious Neo-Nazi morons who staged the anti-gay demo in Melbourne, none of whom appeared to be very old.

Jack Waterford (Forum, March 25) correctly says the Voice referendum "yes" case is an emotional one. But disappointingly he resorted to straw man and ad hominem arguments. He alleged, with no evidence, that "no" proponents want to maintain hostilities against Aboriginals, that they can't get over 1950's attitudes, and that the "no" case is resentful and won't drop the grudge. Straw man and ad hominem arguments are fallacious tactics, typically used when logic, facts and reason fail to persuade. Most unfortunately, they're detracting from the "yes" case.

I fully respect Paul Erlich, KC's questioning of the way the High Court may interpret constitutional matters (Letters, March 25). Like others with no legal credentials, I rely on experts to inform me regarding relevant aspects of the law in which I may become interested. I note though that Mr Erlich's website does not list constitutional law at the top of his wide-ranging legal experience. So how does his opinion, however worthy, stand up against that of noted constitutional experts like former chief justice Robert French and renowned constitutional academic Professor Anne Twomey? Both these highly regarded jurists have carefully set out their reasons why the minor word changes to the Voice amendment are highly unlikely to detract from its capacity to operate as intended. Who, therefore, is right?

No one suggests it will be all smooth sailing, but in Professor Twomey's words, "We will have what people on all sides say they want; a body that can use political influence to help achieve better laws and policies affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people". And to quote Robert French, "This is a large idea, long in the making, whose time has come".

Skimming through today's sports news stories, I see the usual reports of "agonising" losses; (24-14) and "heartbreaking" defeats.

I wonder which adjectives these journalists would choose to use when reporting on what's happening to children now in Syria or Ukraine.

Assuming 24-14 is "agonising," would 50-0 be more "agonising" than 24-23? And does the level of pain depend on the number of points the teams loses by?

I can see these are crucial issues for our times and I hate to think that I am missing something.

I share the sense of loss expressed by many others at the impending closure of the Hobart Place General Practice, and, in addition, serious concern at what this indicates about the future of general practice in Australia. Hobart Place has long been known in the medical community in Canberra for its care for people with challenging, complex health needs.

When I was in general practice, up until several years ago, such care was appallingly remunerated by Medicare, and this problem is almost certainly worse now. By the nature of their health problems, many of these people are unable to pay out of pocket costs. Medicare rewards a rapid turnover of patients, which means seeing plenty of people with a quick simple problem.

Patients get to know which practices are prepared to give them adequate time when needed, and which are not, which tends to reinforce the disproportionate number of longer consultations in practices such as Hobart Place. If the ill-considered proposal for pharmacists' prescribing of medications is adopted, this problem will get worse.

We need more practices like Hobart Place, not to have them driven out of business because Medicare likes consultations to be short and sweet. That doesn't reflect our community's needs. Addressing the factors that have led to this closure could help restore general practice to being an attractive career option for young medical graduates, a status it has, tragically, lost.

Thank you for your very interesting special on voluntary assisted dying (Forum, March 24), especially the range of care and carers available. We live in Bermagui on the South Coast.

My wife is totally disabled by arthritis and I have had a stroke. In August last year we were reviewed by an agency and my wife was given level 3 support and I was rated at level 1.

However to date we have not received any help at all. We get occasional visits from well meaning agents of various organisations.

This all seems to be to no avail. So, an 85-year-old husband still has to pull the 84-year-old wife up from her chair to go to the toilet and help lift her into bed as well as housework and cooking, all I might point out all done very poorly.

As well as manhandling mobility scooter from car to footpath and again pulling wife up from car seat.

Due to my wife's instability and falling, I am obliged to call an ambulance several times for assistance.

The main cause is our location and the fact that there are no care agencies here, only very helpful local self-employed (hobby) folk none of whom can meet the requirements the money guardians demands for paper work or training and other pointless and unnecessary requirements. So no mowing, gardening, cleaning or personal assistance is available.

So if one of the wonderful agencies in your article would like to set up business on the far south coast we would welcome you with open arms.

While I support the sentiment being expressed, I was a little disappointed that students from one of Australia's top universities couldn't come up with something more intellectually scintillating to chant than "F- you, Posie, f- you" ("AFP reviewing incident at rally", March 24). Having said that, I do realise it lends itself to the tune of "Come on, Aussie, come on" rather well.

When I saw Mr Dutton had donned glasses I had hopes that he would see things more clearly. But alas it appears that the only thing clear is the glass in the specs.

The Albanese government tells us we need to open new coal and gas fields so that largely foreign-owned corporations paying almost no Australian tax can meet their overseas contractual obligations.

Does this mean these corporations have signed contracts in advance of project approval in the expectation that a compliant authority will simply wave their new fossil fuel projects through?

Can you identify for your readers precisely where in the constitution the proposed amendment will appear. At present there is nothing in the constitution called "preamble". Thus it seems the change will involve inserting a new section at the top of the text and titled "preamble".

I'm sure most Australians would like to know this detail.

Well done Bradley Perrett for a succinct, clear, well written article listing why Australia needs nuclear subs and what they actually do, in Saturday's CT. A must read for anyone interested in this topic.

Your article on dying by Roy Harvey is exactly my own, with the only difference my Pat had bowel cancer and we had the comfort of her last week at home to pass on to a better place.

BJ Millar describes what is actually a "flying boat" (which lands on its hull) and declares it synonymous with "seaplane" - to the exclusion of "floatplane" (Letters, March 24). This "Millar usage" is neither American usage (which has "seaplane" as an overarching term for both "floatplane" and "flying boat"), nor British usage (which has "seaplane" synonymous with "floatplane" - to the exclusion of "flying boat").

To all the "there's not enough detail" nay-sayers: go and have a look at the detailed outcomes that will stem from a No vote. There's plenty of historical evidence, and it isn't pretty.

I was baffled by Greg Cornwell's misinterpretation (Letters, March 27) of my letter published on March 23. My point was that the perpetrators of serious crimes are not even being tracked down, let alone "face justice".

Letters to the editor should be kept to 250 or fewer words. To the Point letters should not exceed 50 words. Reference to The Canberra Times reports should include a date and page number. Provide a phone number and address (only your suburb will be published). Responsibility for election comment is taken by John-Paul Moloney of 121 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra. Published by Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd.