Memorial explores how and why of war, as is its proper function

That mistaken belief is at the core of all her complaints. It most definitely was intended to be, and remains, both. In fact, it has three quite distinct functions — the Hall of Memory as a Memorial, the Museum Galleries and an excellent research facility.
She also complains the AWM promotes the ‘‘how rather than the why’’ and this somehow leads to the suggestion that ‘‘fighting is the most honourable thing that Australia does’’.
Personal opinion but not fact. I can see both ‘‘how and why’’ in the AWM (they are not mutually exclusive) and that leads me to reflect on sacrifice and service.
Dr Wareham is entitled to her opinion, as am I.
She also raises (again) her concerns about sponsorship of exhibits by companies which sell weapons. I suggest such sponsorships are not incompatible with a military museum — and note that these aren’t seen in the memorial part of the building.
If our government determines that our servicemen and women are to be placed in harm’s way, then they should be provided with the best possible weapons and systems.
Companies that develop and manufacture weapons are essential for that purpose and for our national security. If those companies wish to support the museum element of the AWM, then I for one welcome their contribution.
Dr Wareham is not obliged to join the thousands who go there every day to take in both the memorial and the museum parts of the AWM as it continues to meet its purpose and mission.
Kym MacMillan, O’Malley

The latest report on Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean reveals that 333 minke whales were killed by Japanese whalers last summer, including more than 120 pregnant females (‘‘Japan kills 120-plus pregnant whales in annual ‘scientific research’ hunt’’, May 30, p10).
This whaling has apparently been carried out in Australian Antarctic waters, in defiance of international laws.
Yet considerable quantities of whale meat can be seen for sale to the public in Japan, despite anecdotal evidence that the Japanese taste for whale meat has declined greatly in recent years.
Japan’s so-called ‘‘scientific whaling’’ is allegedly for Japan’s somewhat mysterious Institute of Cetacean Research.
This present phase of the cruel killing of whales — a powerful grenade exploding inside an animal’s body could hardly be described as merciful — has been going on for many decades.
This implies that the ‘‘cetacean research’’ is very slow moving and inefficient, a conclusion backed up by a report that only two peer-reviewed papers from the institute have been published since 2005. It it were an Australian government-funded research organisation it would have been closed down years ago.
Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

Hats off to Elizabeth Farrelly (‘‘High time we had a new party’’, canberratimes.com.au, June 2) and her pursuit of a new party to replace our two mainstream mediocrities.
The great news, Elizabeth, is that you/we do not have to invent a new party; it is already here. Moreover, it ticks most of your boxes. Better still, it offers a genuinely sustainable Australia which, for all its virtue, your visionary party will not. Most admirably, your new party would have the environment as a primary focus. Absolutely no argument here; but a little later your vision turns to the topic of tall, dense, growing cities and the spread of urbanism inland. There, unfortunately, your party’s platform collapses in a screaming heap. It becomes apparent your party could only ever deliver more of the same.
Evidently, despite your despair for the present, and your hopefulness for the future, you have yet to break free from the notion of growth ‘‘forever’’; you have certainly made no effort to explain just how this eternal growth in our number (all of whom, no doubt, will wish to consume more and more of everything) would be compatible with the protection (and, more hopefully, resurrection) of an environment in serious decline. Nor have you addressed the question of why we would wish to grow forever.
Have you, perhaps, conflated growth with change and progress? They are not the same things.
Look up registered Australian political parties online and you will discover a party already exists that ticks all the right boxes.
Graham Clews, Kambah

We hear every day about the dangers of Chinese influence here.
That a foreign government might have access to security information is potentially concerning, and Australia should take care.
Re the US, Australia is a servile compatriot, we fight their wars, we buy their military hardware, and we have on our soil in Pine Gap a major US military intelligence facility.
The US has a declared China containment policy which carries risk of military conflict. Pine Gap clearly exposes us to involvement. Why are those fearing China influence seemingly unconcerned with that?
There is an absolute truth ‘‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’’.
No one is immune, least of all the mightiest military power on earth. The US has the highest military budget, the largest armaments industry profiting from war, and hundreds of military bases surrounding its international competitors.
Its international aggressive posturing and threats against those nations it dislikes, calling them ‘‘rogue’’ nations, threatens world peace.
It should be asked why Australia is always so supportive.
Re Korea, the current flashpoint, we echo the US line that North Korea must unilaterally denuclearise. This was made clear by US military adviser John Bolton’s contention that the Libya model should apply, which is a clear statement that North Korea must disarm without any US concessions except verbal promises.
That Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi is no longer alive tells us the value of such promises.
Vince Patulny, Kambah

The Commonwealth Bank has agreed to pay a $700 million fine for breaching anti-money laundering laws.
While the Prime Minister proudly boasts that this announcement is evidence his government ‘‘will not tolerate wrongdoing in the financial services sector’’, it smacks of the same arrogant chutzpah displayed by a convicted criminal who ‘‘accepts the jury’s verdict’’, implying that he had a choice.
John Richardson, Wallagoot, NSW

I note in the ACT budget papers that the Higgins neighbourhood oval is scheduled for an expensive and extensive upgrade.
Why? Is this compensation for ‘‘stealing by stealth’’ the already grassy manicured and floodlit, much used and enjoyed Kippax community playing fields for two and three-storey high density housing (associated with the Ginninderry proposed upgrade of the Kippax Shopping Centre)?
If the upgrade of Higgins proceeds, it will no longer be a neighbourhood oval and once again we will lose more of our much loved and valued open spaces at Kippax.
Perhaps our government should question and consider why the community playing fields at Kippax have not been considered for development by previous more wary federal and ACT governments.
I suggest that the government’s Sydney-based planning ‘‘experts’’ for the Kippax upgrade visit Canberra on a rainy day and view first hand the drainage patterns and ‘‘virtual’’ flood-plain conditions at Kippax.
Experience tells us that to alter natural drainage patterns is fraught with danger and it is even more irresponsible building houses on and in the near vicinity (unless our ACT government covers flood insurance for residents). If you meddle with Mother Nature and don’t respect her, one day she will come back and bite you.
P. R. Temple, Macquarie

How can the 2018-19 ACT budget claim an anticipated price rise in electricity prices for residents? The coming Australian Energy Market Operator and ACCC reviews of the power and electricity networks are expected to put significant downward pressures on energy and power pricing from 2018-19 onwards. Is the ACT government therefore claiming that ActewAGL will increase prices irrespective of the AEMO and ACCC reviews? Of course the Barr government would nevertheless doubtless be hoping for a price increase in order to obtain increased dividends from ActewAGL, to the detriment of long suffering ACT ratepayers.
Ron Edgecombe, Evatt, ACT

Once again our Chief Minister has seen fit to forget ordinary working people, home and unit owners and motorists.
I didn’t see anything in his budget about fixing the parks, mowing the grasses and cleaning up our excuse for lakes or streets.
I had to smile on his new betting tax on wagers including online, (Good luck trying to enforce that) especially if punters transfer their accounts to NSW or Victoria, which you can do through Tabcorp.
Anyway, I would like to know how he will circumnavigate Section 51(11), 55, 96 and 114 of the constitution applying to taxes made by states and territories.
Errol Good, Macgregor

Like the wild white horses of the French Carmargue, our beautiful brumbies should be protected and preserved as national icons, so congratulations John Barilaro, for having the compassion and commonsense to advocate to save our mountain horses from the agonising deaths recorded at the last cull.
Personally, I feel Australians and international visitors alike would thrill to see wild horses, stallions, mares and foals running free — so much more evocative than any number of three-toed frogs.
Thank you, Mr Barilaro — you stand tall in this woman’s regard.
Christina Faulk, Swinger Hill

G’day. I’m a broad-toothed rat, Mastacomys fuscus, but you can call me Toofy. Apart from the fact that I read The Canberra Times, I’m just your regular kind of small marsupial. Right now I’m pretty busy because I can smell the snow coming – I’m gathering grass to make my winter nest, in between trips to the nearest swamp to pick up a few groceries.
I took time out to read the letter from H. Sapiens Ross Kelly (Letters, June 5) carefully.
Lots of long words, but I figure he wants the wild horses in my neighbourhood, Kosciuszko National Park, to rejoice and be happy. I’m worried that they are going to rejoice in putting a hoof through the ceiling of my winter nest and in squishing my network of grass tunnels.
I guess you big mammals feel you got to stick together, but if there are any of you listening, it would be great if you could get rid of those wild horses. I’d like my kids to be safe next summer.
Is anyone out there on the side of us little guys?
Toofy, via Perisher Valley.
Transcribed by Linda Groom, Deakin

Ian Douglas (Letters, May 28) draws attention to the need to define terms when it comes to income.
The federal government is using average full-time total earnings (currently about $84,600 a year) as its income measure to justify its scrapping of the 37 per cent tax bracket and defining someone earning between $120,000 and $200,000 a year as ‘‘middle’’ income.
Average weekly earnings (currently $62,000 per year) or median income ($46,100 per year in 2015-16) are more accurate as they reflect the composition of the workforce. Even with the optimistic assumption of wages increasing by 3.5 per cent a year (wages are currently growing about 2 per cent), in 2025 all measures would be below the ‘‘middle’’ income: the average full time total earnings would be approximately $111,400, average income $81,600 and the median income $62,800. The benefits of the proposed tax cuts are overwhelmingly to high income groups, more so when negative gearing and salary sacrifice concessions are considered.
Malcolm Turnbull extols ‘‘a fair go’’ as the quintessential Australian characteristic.
His actions are demonstrably unfair: the tax ‘‘reforms’’ including tax concessions to big business, no increase in the Newstart allowance, the inadequate response to climate change to the detriment of future generations; the support of speculation rather than effort by the continuation of capital gains tax and negative gearing concessions, the failure to provide funds to construct social housing; and inadequate responses to aged needs.
The Turnbull government is trampling on the less fortunate.
Mike Quirk, Garran