It's time we had a statue to the goddess of peace at the Australian War Memorial

The recently unveiled statue of nurse Vivian Bullwinkel, along with the statues of Weary Dunlop and Simpson and his donkey in the grounds of the AWM, point to an answer.

They are commemorated not as vanquishing conquerors but for their service to the casualties of war.

Vivian Bullwinkel is not the only woman present in the AWM grounds. Bellona, the goddess of war, stands not far away.

Another woman deserving a statue is the goddess of peace. The timeless and universal value of peace is represented in many forms and in many cultures.

Since antiquity, Eirene the goddess of peace in the Greek pantheon and Pax in the Roman have had their counterpart in Tara in Hindu and Buddhist mythology.

A recent expression is the World Peace Statue at Grandcamp-Maisy, overlooking the Normandy beaches in northern France. Unveiled in 2004 to mark the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings, this statue depicts the angel of peace releasing a dove.

As Bellona faces inwards towards the Memorial, looking to wars of the past, a statue of Peace might face outwards, looking to the horizon in the hope of peace.

A significant work commissioned for the AWM grounds would add a site for refreshing this hope every year on International Peace Day.

If Vanessa Hudson is serious about restoring Qantas' public standing she should should close the Chairman's Lounge. Now. Permanently.

It has become synonymous with the Qantas style of confidentially cosying up to senior decision makers, offering perks and freebies to a (very) privileged few (but only while they hold positions Qantas deems useful to itself) and, not so subtly, gaining undeclared and opaque access to, and influence on, people who are meant to take decisions solely in the national interest.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission should look long and hard at the way Chairman's Lounge memberships are handed out (and withdrawn) because the whole operation is the antithesis of transparency. The Public Service Commissioner, Gordon de Brouwer, has the opportunity to set a new and very public standard of public service ethics and behaviour by banning senior public servants and statutory office holders from accepting membership.

The "top" people who currently populate the Chairman's Lounge undoubtedly fly business class at least and have access to excellent business class and first class lounges. So they're not going to suffer ... much.

And I'm sure they'd all be prepared to make this little sacrifice because, as 99 per cent of them are always telling the rest of us, we're all in this together. (Except in the Chairman's Lounge of course).

Your report ("Big influx lifts growth, adds to housing problem", September 15) rightly acknowledged that Australia's annual population growth (563,200 or 2.2 per cent) was adding to housing stress.

But it failed to address the other downsides of such massive growth, such as failure of infrastructure and services to keep up, and general loss of amenity.

This annual growth for the country (563,200) was about 100,000 bigger than the size of the ACT population, which was 464,600 people at the end of March. Think of the infrastructure required for Canberra; the hospitals, schools, libraries, police stations, fire brigades, community halls, recreational areas and so on. The equivalent has to be built around the country, plus 18 per cent more, every year while such growth persists, if living standards are not to fall.

And even if all our new residents are plonked into high-rise to minimise urban sprawl, people still need resources such as food, clothing and shelter, which means ever more natural habitat destroyed to meet human needs.

Australia's population is now 26.5 million people. At the current rate of growth, we will reach 30 million in less than seven years. Let's not go there. We cannot provide for the basic needs of everyone with the population we already have.

The real estate industry really needs to lift its game.

I am tired of reading either in print media or on websites "price withheld" after a house sale, usually by auction.

"Price withheld" is usually code for the vendor not getting what the real estate agent inferred their homes were worth. I have been attending open inspections and auctions for the past two weeks, and I am alarmed by the agents' practices.

In the current housing climate there are not many registered bidders and houses are frequently passed in and maybe sold after the auction.

The real estate industry needs to adopt a policy of transparency, otherwise I, for one, will be lobbying the government to legislate transparency.

Two questions which the "no" crowd has to answer are: "If not this, then what?" And "if not now, then when?"

They must answer these questions because Peter Dutton has promised a second referendum when he's in government, but he hasn't said what it will be about.

So come on, leaders of the "no" case, be honest with the Australian people. Say what you have in mind, tell us how it will work, and explain every last little detail.

After all, if the people don't know why to vote "no", they can only vote "yes".

I hope the "yes" campaigners do not get too excited by the huge turnout for last Sunday's rallies. It could be a false dawn.

It reminds me of 1975 when the then governor-general, Sir John Kerr, sacked the Whitlam Labor government. There were large pro-Whitlam rallies all over Australia.

But when the Australian people entered the polling booths they kicked out the Labor government. The Coalition won 91 seats to Labor's 36.

I fear there will be a repeat performance on October 14.

In 1967 a huge 90.77 per cent of Australians voted to give First Nations people the right to vote. But when it comes to inviting Indigenous Australians to the table to discuss closing the gap and improving life outcomes and the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people recent polling suggests 65 per cent will vote "no".

Re your article "Voting age to be debated" (September 15). Mr Braddock said that neuroscience demonstrated that 16 and 17 year old had the maturity to vote.

Right now 16 year olds are not deemed mature enough to vote, drive, gamble or drink.

But this proposal would give them the right to gamble on the Greens.

The Greens know that young people are being taught though most schools to "vote Green to save the world from climate change".

Most people of this age would have no knowledge of the economic consequences of a lot of Greens policies as they have not yet supported themselves in the "real world". They still live in the world of "Mum and Dad".

This is a cynical attempt by the Greens to gain votes by stealth.

First Nations people have had decisions made for and about them ever since the arrival of Captain Arthur Phillip. The result has been the appalling state of affairs we see today.

Instead of trying to make sure everyone has the same of everything we should be treating our most vulnerable and disadvantaged with care and compassion and dignity and respect. This would lead to a more humane society and a greater sense of belonging.

The Voice to Parliament would be a good first step. Let us all have the Voice, and let's have now.

At the Canberra walk for "yes", as a visitor from Melbourne, I was impressed by the positivity and tolerance.

One "no" voter with placard bravely walked through the assembled gathering and was not jeered but greeted with the good-natured chant "yes, yes, yes".

One speaker reminded the crowd not to confuse the hesitation of undecided voters with not caring.

But most memorable were the words of Ngunnawal Elder Aunty Violet Sheridan, who said, "This isn't a political matter, it's a matter of respect, equity and human rights".

Well may we heed these messages.

At least we could minimize the cost by having the "Voice" referendum online through MyGov. Albo is being stupidly stubborn on this issue.

There is another option. If you don't know, don't vote. The fine would be little to pay compared to living to regret your negativity for years to come.

Robert Douglas (Letters, September 18) wrote a very good letter on the October referendum. I sincerely thank him. If anyone still has some doubts about some imaginary threats out of this referendum they should think again and stop advocating "no".

It seems the only way "yes" campaigners can argue their point is to insult the "no" voters. "No" voters argue their point politely, and logically, with little reference to "yes" voters. The "yes" voters do not know how to effect change. This is why they will not succeed.

"Yes" rallies go ahead unimpeded. But the recent "no" rally in Adelaide had large numbers of "yes" supporters protesting and making every effort to disrupt proceedings. One side clearly respects the the other side's right to a different viewpoint. The other side is clearly intolerant and disrespectful of those whose viewpoint may differ.

I'm not expecting to find the former prime minister Morrison's memoir under the Christmas tree this year. If anyone does read it, I'd be interested in how he reconciles his aversion to truth telling with his religious beliefs?

I really enjoyed Crispin Hull's article "Small monuments to everything that has gone wrong with government" (September 19). A few years ago, at a federal election, I very nearly wrote "none of the above" on my ballot paper. But that would be wasting my vote. As a result I tried to make a choice. I found it very difficult.

So Scott Morrison "stepped down as prime minister", did he? ("Former PM's memoir to reveal faith influence", September 19). Liar, liar, pants on fire I say. And apparently he said it in church, too.

A very clear lesson here for the ACT government: winging it on aerial drone deliveries doesn't work.

Greg Cornwell (Letters, September 20) the leaders of big business, sporting codes and community organisations are acting in the best interests of clients and members supporting "yes" even though polls suggest most of those will be voting "no". They have correctly discerned which side is most able to cause them grief and positioned themselves accordingly.