Perhaps it's time to consider a name change for another historic building in our city.

I believe that the newly restored Macquarie House in Civic Square should carry the name of its builder and owner, the remarkable entrepreneur and philanthropist Henry Reed.

As a home for our young entrepreneurs today, Henry Reed House would be a very appropriate name.

The name Macquarie House was only given to the Reed warehouse in the 1970s when Civic Square was constructed.

Much historical research into Macquarie was being done in the 1970s, and it may have seemed like a good idea.

But Macquarie (NSW governor 1810-1821) has no links to the building and very tenuous connections to Launceston.

He visited the young town only a couple of times, and indeed did Launceston a great disservice when he moved the northern administration to George Town after 1811.

On the other hand, Henry Reed contributed enormously to the economic, social and religious growth of Launceston from the 1830s. His business activities helped the young town and the whole of Northern Tasmania to prosper.

He also contributed much to the foundation of Melbourne. For those interested, the online Australian Dictionary of Biography has a detailed account of his life written by his grandson Sir Hudson Fysh, founder of Qantas. He was a truly remarkable man whose work should be acknowledged by the name of his building.

Judith Hollingsworth, Norwood.

WOULD the robo-debt fraud Centrelink is currently running have any legal standing? Certainly, as much as they defend it, the number of times they have been shown to make costly mistakes and ignore the suffering they cause clients, this is not about right and wrong to Centrelink.

They want the money, by any means necessary. In light of stories on Donna Selby and Trish Goss, how many more times would Centrelink like their activities made public?

Do they even care? Or are their staff an accurate portrayal of Centrelink and they don't even pretend to be interested in helping? If Centrelink are only motivated to hurt people they should at least have the decency to tell Australia the truth.

Davis Seecamp, Trevallyn.

WHAT a rich letter (The Examiner, August 11) AD Alexander has written.

It speaks of the contention of the small Launceston Heritage Not Highrise group that has formed in response to Launceston City Council's surprising approval of the 40-metre high development in Margaret Street. The taxing task of appealing this imposing decision is left in the hands of one person. The appellant will lose 90 per cent of the privacy and sunlight amenity to her home and business from a hotel tower twice the height of the adjacent Launceston College. It behoves all of us who love Heritage Launceston, to support her in doing the hard yards of protecting her home, to ask the hard questions and to embrace the challenges of protecting the heart of Launceston's future.

Helen Tait, West Launceston.

MICHAEL Mansell's treaty conversation held at the Launceston Town Hall on August 7, was both inspirational and informative and by all accounts was warmly received by a packed audience.

The treaty conversation was based on the three key elements of the Uluru Statement from the heart (voice, treaty and truth).

I was gladdened to see Mayor Van Zetten and two aldermen present, signifying real leadership at the local level.

It is irrelevant whether our civic leaders support a treaty or not however, they chose to exercise an open mind and open heart, also key features of the Uluru statement.

A treaty in Tasmania between the Aboriginal and wider communities will not happen overnight, but I remain optimistic about the future.

Treaty will dominate the political agenda for the next few years and I encourage the public to get involved in this incredibly important debate.

It's time to face up to the truth, listen to the black voice and work in partnership to achieve a treaty in a genuine spirit of respect, reciprocity and integrity.

The benefits of a treaty will be incalculable by righting past wrongs and allowing Aboriginal control over their destinies, rather than remaining the most disadvantaged people in this state by the dominant culture.

Rick Maynard, Youngtown.

THE calls for dedicated Aboriginal seats in Parliament makes perfect sense.

When people ask why seats for Aboriginal people and not all other minorities, the answer is no other group has a legitimate claim to sovereignty and therefore self-governance.

Every other minority group migrated under the sovereignty of Australia and as such is represented. Aboriginal people never ceded sovereignty and as such are unrepresented. We cannot claim that Aboriginal people are now arbitrarily a part of Australia and therefore represented by our governments.

History tells us that settlement of Australia took place through violent force with no legal basis, in the law of the time or the law now. This is a shameful birth of a nation and we see this highlighted every January 26.

Denying this legal wrongdoing condemns us to be trapped in our past.

Acknowledging the facts and taking steps to improve the situation moves us forward.

Two dedicated seats in Parliament is one such positive step forward.

Linda Seaborn, South Hobart