Letter writer JOEL PEARCE, of Queanbeyan, took time to reflect on whether or not to change the date we celebrate Australia Day. Here’s what he came up with…

IT is a given that, for many First Nations people, January 26 is a day of profound trauma for a variety of reasons. 

I propose that we instead have two days to celebrate Australia. January 26 could be known as First Nations Day, a day whereby all Australians celebrate and affirm First Nations people and culture exclusively and take the time to reflect on the terrible history that First Nations people have endured since the establishment of the British colony (and future nation of Australia) at Sydney Cove in 1788.

The alternative date I propose for the celebration of Australia Day is May 9. 

This date is significant for three reasons:

• May 9, 1901, was the date of the first sitting of the new Australian Parliament in Melbourne following federation. 
• May 9, 1927, was the date of the opening of the Provisional Parliament House in Canberra, signifying the official beginning of Canberra as the seat of the government of Australia. 
• May 9, 1988, was the date of the opening of the new Parliament House and permanent residence of the federal parliament of Australia. 
• May 9 is also significant because three generations of the Royal Family were present at these respective events. 

The late Queen Elizabeth II’s grandfather in 1901, her father in 1927, and Her Majesty in 1988.

I feel Australians could celebrate our nation and its people with a great sense of unity and dignity on these two dates and it could help towards ending the controversy and trauma in celebrating our great country on January 26.

Joel Pearce, Queanbeyan 

How about February 7 for Australia Day?

HAVING looked up a reference entitled “Registrar General’s Maps and Plans”, “according to English Law, the land of an acquired colony belongs to the reigning monarch. This land is known as Crown land and this presumption was applied to NSW when Captain Arthur Phillip proclaimed the new colony on February 7, 1788. On this day all land was claimed as the possession of the reigning monarch King George III.”

So why are we continuing to have this argy-bargy about the date for the commemoration of Australia Day? If, by naming January 26 as Invasion Day will go towards solving the problem, let’s do it and transfer Australia Day to the more legally correct date of February 7.

This continual bickering over a date does not cover us in glory and is not what this country is all about. It is now more about acknowledging the traditional owners of the land, honouring them and respecting their customs and sacred places, with the more correct date for Australia Day of February 7 being about honouring our pioneers and sharing and caring for the land which they colonised.

Let us do this as part of our acceptance of the Voice to Parliament.

Patricia Watson, Red Hill

Only indigenous Australians should vote

MAY I ask why are we being asked to take part in a referendum on The Voice to Parliament when the indigenous population is of the opinion that non-indigenous Australians are perceived to be all of the problem? It just doesn’t make sense. 

Surely there would be a more equitable outcome if the referendum targets only indigenous Australians particularly given that more than one opinion for the way forward exists in their own community. 

If we are to resolve this issue for all Australians then our indigenous Australians must have total ownership of the outcome without input from those who are not part of their culture. 

Patricia Parker, Duffy

A blatant abuse of political power?

IN respect of the Voice referendum, how can any fair-minded person believe it proper for the Labor government to permit tax deductions for donations to the “Yes” vote but deny it for donations for the “No” vote? 

Is this not blatant abuse of political power? 

Even rusted-on Labor and Greens voters should acknowledge that, or otherwise be shameless. What else would such an authoritarian government be prepared to do to abuse the rights of citizens that oppose them?

Max Flint, Erindale 

Why social housing spending should trump tram

WE are all familiar with the “deep” concern of politicians about increasing homelessness and housing stress. 

Yet they fail to adopt policies to increase the supply of social housing, despite policy reviews over decades finding it to be the most effective action. Instead, funding priority has been given to rent assistance, negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions.

These policy priorities have resulted in the share of social housing dwellings nationally falling from 9 per cent in 1990 to 4 per cent in 2022; increases in homelessness, housing stress from rapidly increasing rents and house prices, lengthening social housing waiting lists and a decline in the rate of home-ownership. 

Other outcomes include the subsidising of well-off households into multiple home-ownership and the construction of environmentally problematic large homes. The Parliamentary Library estimates the national shortage of social housing will increase from 524,200 dwellings in 2022 to 670,600 dwellings by 2032.

The situation is no better in the ACT with the social housing share falling from 12 per cent of dwellings in 1990 to 6 per cent in 2022. 

The Productivity Commission’s Report on Government Services data found the ACT had Australia’s highest rate of long-term homelessness, that between 2013 and 2022 the expenditure on social housing fell and the number of public housing dwellings fell from 10,956 to 10,744.

The construction of more social housing could be funded by increasing its budgetary priority, higher taxes, taxing high-value family homes, the removal of first home buyer assistance and reducing negative and capital gains tax concessions which largely benefit the wealthy.

However, political action is constrained by community opposition to increased taxes and attitudes shaped by windfall gains from increases in property prices. Until such views change, significant reduction in housing inequality is unlikely.

This places an onus on governments to increase the budgetary priority of social housing. Current actions include state governments providing $10 billion for the construction of an additional 15,500 social housing dwellings and the Federal government’s plan to build 30,000 new social and affordable housing properties over five years through the Housing Australia Future Fund. 

Consideration could be given to targeting rent assistance to those on the lowest incomes, exploring rent-to-buy and build-to-rent schemes.

The ACT government could demonstrate its social justice credentials by giving social housing a higher priority including the diversion of funds from the unnecessary light rail extension to Woden.

Mike Quirk, Garran

Tree replacement plan a ‘huge’ waste of money

IN Canberra’s parliamentary zone, Lombardy Poplars are planted as sentinels to key buildings and spaces. 

They are dignified and tall trees with yellow autumn leaves that fall to reveal attractive white winter branches. They do not have showy blossoms or gaudy autumn colours. They do not drop big damaging branches or large cones. They are not a fire hazard and they do not propagate by seed dispersal. 

But they do sucker and are a known hazard on rural watercourses. However, although sucker removal is undertaken successfully in many country towns, the ACT government has indicted the Lombardy Poplar as a “pest” in their Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005, an Act enforced by penalties that blanket-list numerous trees regardless of their management. 

The NCA appears to be acquiescing to the ACT’s questionable “pest” legislation – that should not apply in the Commonwealth’s heritage-listed parliamentary zone.

The stressed Lombardy Poplars at the National Library were initially proposed for replacement with stumpy oaks, later changed to hybrid Tulip Trees that are attractive but alien to the heritage landscape design. Remarkably, recent years of flooding rains have revived the library poplars, and a small amount of pruning will return them to the dignified trees of yesteryear. 

Extensive poisoning will be needed to eradicate the poplar root mass along with the roots’ mycelium, possibly leading to poisonous runoff into stormwater and the lake. 

The tree replacement proposal is a huge waste of dollars at a time when earth’s warming is desperate and when protection with proper management of all Canberra’s cultural trees is critically needed.

Juliet Ramsay, via email

Government’s legacy of a ‘huge, white elephant’

WELL done, Frank Reade, of Macquarie (Letters, CN January 26), for voicing your disgust at the state of our once beautiful city.

The hypocrisy of this woeful Greens/Labor government does not go unseen to all proud Canberrans.

For the last two decades, on all sides of the city, we have the exact same weed infestations, dead trees lining every road way, on main roads and in all our suburbs. 

We now have St John’s Wort covering all of Canberra. It’s spread more and thicker than I have ever seen since 1963. 

Clearly our “devoted environmentalists” have totally ignored the government legislation on noxious weed control in the ACT. Yet, across the border in NSW, land owners cop massive fines by all councils, if they dare neglect weed control. 

The ACT government does not answer to anyone, not even the taxpayers that they are ripping off, blatantly wasting our taxes on “one huge white elephant” for the inner city and northside residents! Which, by the way, just happens to be Barr and Rattenbury’s electorate.

Follow the money Canberra voters, and ask yourself: do you want your whole city beautiful and maintained again, rather than a bleeding tram that only services a minority of inner-city elites and a minority of northside suburbs? 

Not to mention the second, wasteful Stage 2 they are hell-bent on going ahead with. 

Barr and his Greens/Labor have absolutely no shame. Instead of a legacy being a huge white elephant, it could have been funding and finding homes for all Canberra’s desperate homeless. What hypocrisy, shame and failure this Greens/Labor government has forced upon us.

Ros Thomas, Gordon

Likely the women will feel like vomiting

RE the letter from Karina Morris about construction workers “perving” and commenting on scantily-dressed women (Letters, CN January 26).

I assume that the women Karina referred to in her letter were young (let’s face it, they would not have been considered “perv-worthy” if over 25). 

They might have dressed in a particular way hoping to attract the attention of certain young men they found appealing. They might have done it because they were trying to look like someone on social media. One thing I am sure of is that they did not do it to attract the attention of every hideous man they passed by.

There seems to be a general perception among men that women are not selective and will appreciate the attention of any man. Not so. It’s more likely the women will feel like vomiting.

Deb Edwards, Weston

Is it surprising disrespect is becoming blatant?

PERHAPS Katrina Morris (Letters, CN January 26) would prefer the culture of my childhood when a man would dip his lid or give up his seat to a woman as a mark of respect?

To even open a door for the modern woman could provoke a sarcastic response in the feminist vernacular.

The late Prince Philip summarised the change in attitudes by quipping that when a man opens a car door for a woman it is either a new car or a new wife.

If young men receive their relevant education from pornography, TV programs such as “Married at First Sight” and the casual sex paradigm, while being a single, woke female is often preferred over being a mother of a family, is it surprising that disrespect is becoming blatant, even violent.

Yes Katrina, this is 2023.

John L Smith, Farrer

Who do these blokes think they are? The Taliban?

THE letter by Karina Morris (CN January 26) about the behaviour of male construction workers deserves support.

I am a 72-year-old male and I don’t remember ever having been taught that it is okay for men to publicly ridicule women for their choice of clothing. 

It is interesting that building sites are the most common places where this happens. A group of blokes together trying to impress each other with their witty (or nasty) comments about some passing woman. They gain bravado by being in a group. They are not really concerned about what the woman is wearing, they are just trying to impress their mates. They are behaving like the cowards that they really are.

Karina mentioned that a male construction worker thought it was okay for men to react adversely when a woman wasn’t attired according to their standards. Who do these blokes think they are? The Taliban?

A common sight around construction sites is the bloke with his shorts pushed low by his beer gut. From the rear, an unpleasant vertical smile displayed to the world. If a group of women were to start publicly humiliating one of these specimens, can you imagine the outrage!

Unfortunately, too many men from mine and the following generation, haven’t got the wit to realise that their attitudes are no longer wanted.

John Franze, Gowrie

Blatant sexism with overdose of arrogant hypocrisy

KARINA Morris hit the male attitude problem on the head when she relates how the male worker would have told his female family members how to dress when they went out in public (Letters, CN January 26). 

So some men still want to control women’s actions, right down to the way they look. Yet, they try to abrogate themselves and their mates from any responsibility to act like intelligent grownups. 

Sounds like blatant sexism to me laced with an overdose of arrogant hypocrisy. 

Eric Hunter, Cook