IT was an historic moment when Labor and the prime minister stopped their fawning to the outdated British monarchy. I found it embarrassing for Albanese to embrace the new loyalty pledge to the UK monarchy. Mr Albanese doesn't speak for me, and I'm sure many Australians are puzzled by this.
It's at odds with building support for an Indigenous Voice in the Constitution and the reality of a more diverse Australian population. I doubt the new pledge will stop fading support for Charles as King and the British royal family generally. Their very wealthy lives have nothing to do with the vast majority doing it tough. Britain cut legislative ties with Australia in the 1986 Australia Act. How much more is the Labor PM expecting Australians to give to the UK on top of billions for their submarines, AUKUS, a so-called free trade agreement and minor work changes?
Kerry Vernon, New Lambton
Coronation past will look a farce
IT won't be long now before we're looking back at the farcical events in the UK and asking ourselves why hasn't Australia dumped the monarchy. Saturday's pomp and ceremony will look like nothing but a very expensive theatrical performance designed to cement an elitist agenda even though our PM is paying homage. The crowds lined the streets with plastic flags in one hand and empty food bowls hidden behind their backs.
Somehow, I think the priorities here are really out of kilter. What is this rubbish costing Australia? We have hungry and homeless men, women and children. How about aiming the money in their direction? I have no doubt there were monarchists sitting at home, salivating at the thought of endless and cerebrally atrophying TV coverage in anticipation. I thought Saturday was a great day to go to the park or stick your bum in the freezer until it was over. That, folks, was likely a bloody sight more fun.
Nick Ryder, Booragul
Referendum due for decent shot
I PERUSED the Newcastle Herald's Saturday lift-out ('Moments with his Majesty', Herald 6/5). My response? Fooey, pish or crap; Take your pick. I cannot become excited about the coronation of the elderly Charles III. Charles may be a good chap. He may be charming and personable. Like his dad, Charles may be a champion environmentalist. I doubt that he believes in the divine right of kings. Charles may even be a closet republican. But Charles enjoys inherited privilege, unmerited influence and enormous unearned wealth.
Charles will not give up his crown, and will not divest himself of his unearned wealth and estates. More particularly, Charles is unlikely to give up his kingship of Australia. He may well be a victim of his circumstances. As a tractable young prince, he was seemingly forced into marriage with Diana, a woman he barely knew. Before Diana's untimely death, Charles carried on an adulterous relationship with his future queen, Camilla, the true love of his life. While royalists might say this proves his humanity, staunch Anglicans may equally say as titular head of the Anglican Church, sworn to fidelity, Charles cannot be king.
I say, with the death of Elizabeth II and the ascension of Charles III, Australians should re-examine their form of government. I can hear many of my fellow Australians hoping not the republic debate again, not two constitutional referendums in quick succession! Our Constitutional monarchy operates OK at present.
Why change it? It is only symbolic anyway. But symbolism is important, as any royalist knows themself.
Australia cannot have an unelected foreigner as head of state. Australia should have its own head of state. It should not have a monarch or a monarch-approved Governor-General. An Australian president would have powers limited to overcoming impasses in the operation of government. But, in doing this job, an Australian president would not refer to Britain.
Instead, in making decisions, an Australian president should consult our Constitution and the Attorney General's office and be open to High Court challenge.
Furthermore, a president should be elected by all eligible Australian voters. In my opinion, the last Republican Referendum in 1999 failed because this option was not given to voters. Instead, they asked voters to vote for a republic in which the president was elected by a parliamentary majority of two thirds. The Howard government knew from its own pre-polling, that voters wanted to vote directly for a future president, so the referendum result was a foregone conclusion and the referendum itself a waste of taxpayers' money.
Geoff Black, Caves Beach
Reach exceeds too many grasps
STAN Keifer ("Owners should lower their vision", Letters, 5/5), I do agree with you that if smaller houses are built it will be much more affordable for homeowners and renters. But I have to level the blame at the buyers more than the builders. If people didn't want big buildings, they wouldn't be asking for them to be built; they would go for smaller.
Buyers choose the style and size of build, or they can purchase smaller existing houses. It is their choice. Australia has some of the highest levels of pool and air-conditioning ownership in the world per capita. These are things that are added later, but it shows the mindset of buying big is entrenched.
I think the bigger problem with housing affordability is the unconstrained desire to buy a big house. There are too many people buying big then crying poor. I doubt if they really think it through as well as they should. Unlike when I was young, this crop of young buyers seem to have a lower ability to exercise fiscal restraint. Too many people have to buy the biggest and latest of anything.
There are more complaints on TV about the cost of buying vegetables than the much much bigger financial decisions such as the size of the house that is bought or rented. This is promoting that same screwed mindset. You buy a smaller house at a saving of $10,000 per year - that is a much bigger saving than $2 off a weekly lettuce. I have to wonder if the young people of today are really being taught the correct budget skills from a young age. Parents should teach correct fiscal restraint and budgeting, but it should also be taught at school.
Glen Wilson, Cardiff
What did we learn from COVID?
THE World Health Organisation has now declared the COVID pandemic over. The pandemic has been estimated to have taken the lives of at least 20 million people worldwide. In Australia 5372 people were reported to have lost their lives due to COVID. The spasmodic and varied responses left us in wonderment as to what the right and wrong measures were.
Governments, it seems, continue to neglect the possibility that a similar pandemic may be just around the corner. If ever there is a need for a royal commission we need only to look at the way Australian government and bureaucrats handled COVID. Call me cynical, but I suspect government leaders may be more concerned with the findings of such a royal commission than they are of putting in place systems that enable us to better handle a similar pandemic.
John Cooper, Charlestown
SHORT TAKES
WHAT an appalling piece of drivel from Garry Linnell in his column, ("Irreverent apathy: long may it reign over us", Opinion 6/5). I hope he spent even a few minutes watching the TV coverage of the coronation. An amazing throng of loyal, excited and adoring supporters packed the path of the Royal Procession from Westminster Abbey to the palace. The crowds were from all walks of life and from all over the world; their jubilant enthusiasm was not at all dampened by the prevailing rain. Mr Linnell stated that Charles's kingdom "long ago vanished into a sea of apathy and indifference". I don't think so.
Jo Wark, Hamilton
THE Brits sure know how to put on a bit of pomp, but, then again, so does North Korea.
Peter Ronne, Woodberry
I TOTALLY agree with Gary Linnell's article regarding prince big ears on Saturday ("Irreverent apathy: long may it reign over us", Opinion 6/5). Obscene amount of public money wasted on the royal mob again. Overpaid, overrated and over there. Matt Johnson's letter ("Let younger generation get on with the job", Letters, 6/5), to the editor was spot on as well. Thanks Matt, from one of the boomers.
Wayne Grant, Waratah
I SUPPOSE that we (Australia) should be loyal to a country that used us as a dumping ground for its overload of convicts. The land grants were only made to free citizens. The history of the monarchy is one of moral degradation (Henry VIII etc). Steve Barnett (Short Takes, 6/5), if you want to be a monarchist, please go to England where they will welcome you with open arms. As for our present prime minister, I understand that if his government is re-elected he will potentially try and do away with the monarchy.
John Levick, Adamstown
IN reply to Steve Barnett (Short Takes, 6/5), I am an Australian and have never been loyal to the monarchy. How can I be a traitor when England is foreign to me? I was watching the footy, Steve. Hope you enjoyed the coronation.
Bill Slicer, Tighes Hill
THE Archibald Prize has always been controversial, but in my opinion looking at the 2023 winner ('Young artist wins Archibald with portrait of singer Montaige', Herald 6/5) and another painting done by French artist Egon Schiele in 1917 may set off an interesting art conversation among experts.
Alan Hamilton, Hamilton East
THE government is talking up fortnightly and monthly salaries being paid weekly to reduce the need for payday loans with high interest. This is sensible, with no better example than pensions and welfare payments. These are the people who would benefit the most; these are the one in three who have less than $500 in savings behind them.
