Letters to the editor, The Daily Advertiser, May 20

Some people, either consciously or unconsciously, completely misunderstand a basically simple proposal.

It is about Aboriginal people having a say to parliament about legislation that affects Aboriginal people.

Garbage about the budget considerations is a complete nonsense.

What is also nonsense is the furphy about the High Court's deliberations concerning the Voice.

This comes from those that do not understand the role and function of the High Court.

The anticipation of High Court interference as to the judgement in the Mabo decision proved to be unwarranted.

Should the proposal succeed there are ample legal luminaries (including former High Court judges) who have said that the amendment is very unlikely to involve any consideration by the High Court.

Robert T. Walker's curious claim of cui bono seems to confuse the responsibility of parliament with that of the Voice as parliament is responsible for all legislation that it believes is for the "peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth".

Does the parliament have anything to gain from this proposal?

A couple of unrelated facts: Jenna Price cites recent research that says that "one in two Tasmanians of working age are functionally illiterate".

People from the Apple Isle are called "Taswegians".

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but it would be the same as referring to New South Walers, Queenslindians or Canbrats - charmingly naive, but functionally illiterate.

Speaking of the Apple State, poor Harry and Meghan's hair raising "two-hour high-speed paparazzi chase" in NY cost them US$17 (and a $50 tip).

Cab flag-fall in that city is $3 and 70c per fifth of a mile (300m) or every 60 seconds thereafter, making the ordeal either a total of about 6km (less than 10 minutes at "high speed") or a maximum of 20 minutes if dawdling.

Even a Victorican would twig to something being wrong in that royal tale of woe.

READ MORE LETTERS:

It's been a year since Labor swept to victory in what was dubbed "the climate election".

Given that the vast majority of Australians care about conserving our environment, this one-year milestone seems an appropriate opportunity to ponder how the environment is faring under the Albanese Labor government. To me, it's a mixed bag.

The good: legislated emissions reductions targets, a threatened species action plan, and a reformed safeguard mechanism that should rein in big climate polluters.

The bad: ongoing native forest logging and support for expansion of the gas industry.

The ugly: Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek approving a new coal mine.

In short, policy and pledges are edging in the right direction, but to achieve a safe, healthy future for our children and all Australia's glorious flora and fauna, there is much work to do.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you have something to get off your chest? Simply click here to send a letter to the editor.