When the location of the national capital was being decided early last century, a coastal location was ruled out because of the danger of naval bombardment. Canberra, some 100km from the coast, was deemed to be safe from naval attack at the time and any from possible future artillery developments. How naive and short-sighted this seemed within decades, as high altitude bombing and long-range missiles became the weapons of choice.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Now we are gambling the defence of Australia on a handful of submarines. They can hide underwater, so they'll make us safe, right? A better bet would be that in 20 years' time new technologies will be able to locate submarines and render them sitting ducks. It is ironic that the toys-for-boys brigade on Russell Hill has learnt nothing from Canberra's own history.
Richard Manderson, Narrabundah
Let's trust the experts again
Correspondents who seem to be overheating about possible challenges to the legal validity of the Voice should relax and listen to the experts. That's what we urged each other to during COVID. The legal-floodgates worriers should also remember that you don't just rock up to the High Court and put your case. The court itself decides whether any claim has validity to warrant hearing or not.
Well before then, though, we have several constitutional procedures of a parliamentary committee and legislation debates to go through before we have to vote - plenty of time for sensible public and parliamentary discussion, including possible wording changes before we have to vote.
Finally, and critically, the one expert who has expressed some concern in a reasoned way has also made a very important qualification. He said whatever the final wording, he will still vote for constitutional recognition, because it is the right thing for all of us.
Eric Hunter, Cook
Impact on the public service
Absolutely "yes" to the idea of recognising Indigenous Australians in the constitution. But "no" to the current Voice in the Parliament proposal until somebody provides some clarity for me as to the administrative implications. As a long-serving public servant, I would like to understand how the public service, as opposed to the Parliament, would be directed to consult.
Public servants developing policy proposals on my reading would have to consult the Voice before formulating recommendations to their minister or implementing particular policies. The consultative process in time, cost and complexity could only delay the policy-making apparatus. Asking Australians to simply vote on a principle with the machinations of government and the interrelationship with its public service to be developed at some point thereafter if successful is too far removed from reality. Provide some explanation as to how the Parliament will set about this task and I will be a "yes".
John D. Purcell PSM, Kambah
Don't blame the bureaucrats
In the recent article ("It's time to cancel cancel culture") Amanda Vanstone continues the Coalition's tradition of undermining the public service. She says "there will be no trial, no evidence led or weighed up ... How did we let these people, usually bureaucrats with secure jobs get to ruin people's lives".
I once worked in the ministry headed by Ms Vanstone. One question time her performance was particularly bad and the bureaucrats who had prepared question time briefs were embarrassed. They genuinely wanted their minister to perform well and the notes were carefully prepared. The thing is that the minister has to read them and on this occasion she commented that maybe she should have done. Blaming bureaucrats for cancel culture is going too far.
Peggy Spratt, Ainslie
Obstacles everywhere
Tom Cooke (Letters, April 4), correctly identifies Tony Abbott as one who promoted the opposition's role as one of total negativity. Regrettably it worked well for him. However, Tony is not the only one to have done so. The senate, which originated as a house of review, has now been diminished to one of obstruction. Maybe it's time for it to be reviewed.
Mario Stivala, Belconnen
Send us a letter to the editor
- 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.
