Adam Bandt removing the background flag insulting? ("Bandt behaviour insulting", The Daily Advertiser, June 23).
This letter left me wondering who would actually be insulted.
First fact about our current Australian Flag - it was introduced by the Flag Act 1953 and was made official in 1954.
Any veterans of The Great War of Europe and its extension World War II were part of the Imperial Force fighting under the Red Ensign.
So that leaves our contemporary forces in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan going into battle under the present Australian flag (which includes the Union Jack in prominence).
Now what actually are we getting upset about?
I sympathise with the oppressed peoples who were defeated by the British colonisers, starting with the Welsh and then the Scots and then the Irish, which eventually combined to symbolically form the Union Jack, together with the English.
Now we have had 234 years of European occupation on land that was claimed under the falsehood of "Terra Nullius".
In my opinion, the war and bloodshed of invasion has never been accounted for.
This past should be acknowledged and the Union Jack removed from our flag.
I think these issues are background to the discussion Adam Bandt has started.
READ MORE LETTERS:
No surprises when seeing the camera story in Thursday's paper ("Speed camera concern", The Daily Advertiser, June 23).
Of course it's about revenue, it has to be.
Acusensus, the company operating the cameras, is for profit.
If no one is caught speeding the business model collapses.
It meshes well with roads that have an unusually slow speed limit, like the spot where this camera was located.
Lake Albert Road heading south changes from 60km/h to 50km/h at the Kooringal Road roundabout, coincidentally with a safer section of road.
Drivers will often exceed 50km/h on this section, with no houses and only one clearly visible intersection.
There was a huge increase in fines when the previous small and barely visible signs were removed.
It suggests that the signs were effective.
I suggest that the reason for the extra fines is much more to do with the likely reduction in the tolerance placed on the speed limit.
Fines for 57km/h suggest this.
We are encouraged to assume that these small indiscretions are a threat to safety, without evidence.
How many crashes in town are caused by exceeding 50km/h by small amounts of less than 10km/h?
An unfortunate consequence is the increase in both greenslip and car insurance that follows these frivolous fines.
We pay the fine many times over after a safety benefit that has never been clearly demonstrated.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you have something to get off your chest? Simply click here to send a letter to the editor.
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.