Letter writers over the past week raise the issues of women verbally abusing women in public, the Voice, a Kiaps memorial, and more.

Canberra’s middle-aged women have a problem (from a middle-aged woman)

I wonder if the women of Canberra have noticed a marked rise in the amount of street abuse they receive from other women, typically middle aged? 

In the past week, I have been twice verbally abused in public, both times when I was acting in complete privacy. The first, on public transport, when a bus route went down the wrong road, I alerted the driver (I was right), but a toothless female passenger yelled out that I was a “stupid [female dog]”. And on 12 February in the car park of an animal hospital, collecting the ashes of my recently-deceased pet, another middle-aged woman who had just blocked access to myself and another vehicle with her own car (I said nothing, but patiently waited for her to unblock access), she screamed (yes!) at me over the car park because I did not speak with her, yelling “I am apologising, you [female dog]!” In both cases, I had zero interactions with either of these females, but they hurled disgusting abuse in public, to someone they do not know (me). 

I hold a doctoral degree and my career is dedicated to advocating for women in professional fields. It seems that many women in the ACT community are appallingly misogynistic themselves. How sad, that some in Canberra’s middle-aged female population should behave in this way. Even more regrettable that Canberra’s hard-working women such as myself, should be subjected to this gutter-level abuse, in the streets, by other women. 

Is it too much to walk out one’s own door, mind one’s own business, and be treated with respect on the street? In Canberra, of all places? 

• N Bourne, Phillip ACT

The Voice remains ‘divisive’

Our Chief Minister wants the ACT to have the highest Voice vote, thus matching our gold medal Republican and Same Sex Marriage votes. Those issues were clear and unifying: respectively, the notion of ancestral blue blood is ridiculous, and Gays deserve the same rights as anybody else. In contrast, the Voice is peppered with notions of ancestral black blood and consequently remains muddy, divisive, and pessimistic.

• P Robinson, Ainslie ACT

Levy on deceased estates

I applaud Bill Stefaniak’s suggestion that defined benefits recipients of more than $100,000 per year be taxed on their benefits over that amount (CW, 2 Feb 2023, p8). I have a suggestion that is likely to be equally unpalatable and perhaps as remunerative as Bill Stefaniak’s.

Place a ‘temporary deficit levy’ on the deceased estates of all persons who were aged 60 and 60+ on January 1 2020. Notwithstanding the need to protect our farmlands which need to be treated differently if owned by Australians, when one is dead, one no longer has a pecuniary interest to feel self-righteously protective over. The would-be direct beneficiaries of one’s estate will already be in their mature adulthood and variously well-placed; they and their children will still benefit from the estate, and it is always an unearnt bonus to receive from departed loved ones. The grandchildren of the cohort paying the levy will benefit from the paying down of the nation’s indebtedness. The bonus is that those of us who reaped the largesse of democratic socialism in the ‘70s and early ‘80s, who reaped the health benefits of an open and healthy semi-rural Australian lifestyle in the post war years, will truly give back as their last act upon this earth.

Disclaimer: I am a Baby Boomer; this would apply to my estate, too.

• M Riddell, ACT

Change the date debate

As an Australian born and bred, in my sixties, the question as to whether we should change the date for Australia Day is a resolute YES. Why? Because the simple answer is that 26 January does not represent all Australians. It certainly doesn’t represent me as my ancestors were not “First Fleeters”, it doesn’t represent the First Nations peoples, nor, I suspect, immigrants and refugees.

Having looked into this, it appears the best date to be 3 March. 3 March represents the date the Australia Act commenced. 1 January 1901 isn’t suitable as it primarily relates to 6 British Colonies changing into Australian States.

The importance of the Australia Act should not be under-estimated. In 2003 the High Court held that the act “gave voice to the completion of Australia’s evolutionary independence … it was a formal declaration that the Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian states were completely constitutionally independent of the United Kingdom

By the way I’m all for a new national anthem and flag.

• R Soxsmith, Kambah ACT

Support for Kiaps’ memorial

As the wife of a recently deceased former ‘Kiap’, I fully endorse MP David Smith’s call for a memorial to the Kiaps who served in pre-independent PNG.

It was a challenging and rewarding life and was geared to preparing the people and land of PNG for Independence, self government. It was never intended to be an exploited colony.

Many former Kiaps have left this world and it would be fitting that a memorial to all serving officers be created before the last passes away.

My husband was keen to see this happen, but it is too late for him, and so many others who are gone.

Thank you, David Smith, for raising this in the public sphere. We now need to see it in reality. 

• E Staples, Campbell ACT

Conflating Voice referendum with details

Bill Stefaniak (CW 9 February 2023, p14) says he’ll express no definitive view on the Voice. He’s happy, however, to express an un-definitive one, including a deliberate misquote he attributes directly to the Prime Minister. Bill should also know that, that an Amendment expert task force is going through the draft wording announced by Anthony Albanese last July at Garma, to ensure the elimination of any vexatious legal challenges.

A Referendum is also totally different to the example he cites about ACT public meetings discussing legislation. A Constitutional Referendum is usually about asking Australians to simply say yes or no to a basic principle; like that spelled out in the Garma draft (a final version, soon to be available, is likely to be little different apart perhaps from a few legal tweaks). The simple principle we’ll vote on is, do we want to see the historic uniqueness of our First Australians acknowledged in the Constitution through a right to have their views heard by the parliament?

Finally, Mr Stefaniak conflates the Referendum with the more detailed structure and operation of the legislated Voice Advisory body itself. That will be decided by the Parliament after the Amendment is voted on. Everyone who wants to will have a chance to discuss and debate those details, including the Opposition having the capacity to offer suggestions it thinks will result in a more efficient and effective body. So far, there’s been silence from the political naysayers in this regard, including Mr Stefaniak.

• E Hunter, Cook ACT

Thanks to the editor (CW 9 February 2023 p16 ) for putting I. Pilsner right over CW’s Australia Day coverage. I. Pilsner, in wrongly castigating CW for a supposed lack of AD coverage, shows he is still wearing his dark-blue, ultra-conservative glasses. As they say, there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

• E Hunter, Cook ACT

Want to share your opinion?

Email [email protected] with ‘To the editor’ in the subject field; include your full name, phone number, street address (NFP) and suburb. Keep letters to 250 words maximum. Note, letters may be shortened if space restrictions dictate.