January 26 marks the start of modern Australian history

But if one is driven to appease anti-British, noisy woke activists and whiners let's turn our attention to Peter Dowding's effort a day later (Letters, January 21) where he suggests some authority for federal governance.

If it's authority that's wanted first credit the great concept of a federation of self-governing colonies to Parkes via his Tenterfield Orations (November 1889 and May 1890).

Then acknowledge the magnificent work of Griffith, Downer, Garran and many others in developing legislation for a federal constitution without "blood staining the wattle".

We should also note the British Parliament's wonderful consensus in early July 1900 by passing the Commonwealth of Australia Act. This was followed just a few days later with royal assent by Queen Victoria on July 9.

There's your "clear authority", political and constitutional, Mr Dowding.

Having said that, is not Kym MacMillan's view the most telling of all? January 26, 1788, rough, brutal, vulgar and uncaring in so many ways, was the start of modern Australia.

Stuffy legalisms and churlish references to failures should not be allowed to superimpose themselves on where we are now: imperfect but wonderful, nonetheless. So worthy of celebration.

Most national days celebrate a significant date like independence or the adoption of a constitution. It is a time for strengthening national unity.

But whatever you think of January 26 no one can assert it strengthens unity. Yet calls to change the day lack ideas as to an alternative.

There is none better than our independence day, which occurred on March 3, 1986. On that day, the Australia Act came into force in both UK and Australia.

The UK gave up all residual powers given it in the constitution, and its power to appoint state governors.

The Australian monarch has a different legal personality to the UK monarch, (inter alia he is not Defender of the Faith), and has no powers.

He retains only one duty, namely to appoint as governor-general whoever the Australian PM recommends. Since then we are ourselves responsible for what happens. All can celebrate March 3.

Historically the most appropriate date to celebrate Australia Day is January 1.

This is because it was only on January 1, 1901, that all our different colonies joined together to form the Australian nation.

In contrast, whatever we may think of European occupation, January 26 really only applies to New South Wales, and not to the rest of Australia.

Celebrating Australia Day on January 1 would not only be inclusive of all Australians, but it would remove a divisive (and some might argue an unnecessary) public holiday.

Australia Day parties with tired and emotional guests are just following historical precedent.

The first such party after the First Fleet mob landed was on February 6 when the women came ashore.

This set the standard. It was a huge drunken orgy.

The ill-written editorial in The Canberra Times of January 25 ("Stage three backflip does little for poor") in which the writer expresses "déjà vu all over again" and the emotive language, "pilfering, bribe, and cartwheels", does not do justice to the serious revenue situation faced by the Albanese government when it came to office.

The previous Morrison government laid traps for any future Labor administration. By contriving taxation arrangements that marginally benefited those on minimum incomes it greatly favoured those on the highest of incomes.

Despite the bluster and self-righteous bleating of the government's disreputable opponents, this is now to be rectified.

The LNP were aware that no Labor government in all consciousness could leave the taxation arrangements untouched. We should not be surprised, and it is not class warfare.

It is overdue for the Opposition to be less destructive of good government and more constructive in its criticisms, lest it be regarded by the electorate as just a carping rabble. After all Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers have much to do to repair the Australian economy and to provide a stable administration after years of misrule.

If nothing else, Thursday's National Press Club speech by the PM proved yet again the decline in journalistic standards in this country.

With the exception of Michelle Grattan, and the last two questioners, all of the "hacks" sought to obtain a "gotcha" admission that a "promise" had been broken.

Somehow the stage three tax cuts have become the property of Albo, not Scott Morrison, who sought to wedge an incoming Labor government by leaving a 2024 timebomb in the form of an unaffordable gift to high-income earners. Morrison was extracting revenge for Gillard leaving the timebomb of NDIS for Tony Abbott.

All Labor did in 2022 was say they had no plans to change the stage three cuts, which had been legislated under the Morrison government.

That wording didn't eliminate any "wriggle room"; ie that if circumstances changed they would not change their minds. That's what we expect politicians to do when the facts of a situation change.

Led by the Murdoch press, journalists were seeking a scalp; a mea culpa. All but three of them concentrated on the so-called breach of promise. They failed to ask if things could have been done even better than what is now proposed.

There was also no acknowledgement the Coalition appears to be gently walking back Wednesday's promise to fully re-legislate the stage three tax cuts in their original form if re-elected. Could it be that the LNP has realised there might actually be popular support for the changes given there is a cost-of-living crisis?

For the sake of a perceived or anticipated advantage, politicians play politics. An economic decision to alter the stage three tax cuts, to make them fairer for the vast majority of Australian taxpayers does not deserve the opprobrium dished out by the Murdoch press.

This is good policy. It could have been better but it is far better and fairer than the original design.

How many times in the previous nine years of LNP government did a good policy decision trump a crass political decision?

Labor's commitment to the legislated stage three tax cuts was a "non-core promise" just like many of the promises made by prime minister Howard and prime ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison during the long and tiresome years of LNP government. I'm absolutely fine with that.

Global challenges abound and have seriously impacted Australia since the last election. Everyone gets a tax cut. Fantastic outcome. No apology required Mr Albanese. Good job.

I'm very happy the PM thought of the plight of the average Australian in revising the stage three tax cuts and did not worry too much with the optics.

This takes courage, a quality not often seen in Australian politics today.

What a great tactical wedge back by Labor. The LNP pressured Labor to agree to unpalatable tax cuts, but now the best it can say, without alienating most Australians, is that the election was based on a lie.

So? Past elections with non-core promises ("no cuts to the ABC or SBS") were also not legitimate then.

With its vow to unpick Labor's proposed adjustments to the stage three tax legislation imposed on the nation during better economic times the LNP is positioning Peter Dutton as the bad guy. A "Sheriff of Nottingham" robbing from the poor to give to the rich. On the other side they are positioning Albo as the good guy. Robin Hood taking from the rich to give to the poor. What a bunch of blockheads.

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.