YOUR SAY: Is the Premier just the messenger?

Both Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockcliff, and his deputy, Michael Ferguson, would do well to reflect upon this ancient phrase.

To do otherwise may invite disaster at the ballot box for this state's Liberals Party and its supporters.

Ross Robbins, Launceston

Our Councillor, Ms. Susie Cai (with respect) and Mr. Jim Courier of 'Heritage not High Rises' and their band of protesters made a lot of noise about the proposed Gorge Hotel. They were also responsible for stopping the construction of The Fragrance Boutique Hotel on Tamar and William Streets.

I have not heard a peep from the above protesters about the St.Luke's Health building under construction in Cimitiere Street. This building will be tall, seven storeys and 700 square metres (The Fragrance Hotel was only a mere 12 metres higher).

These protesters do not consider our tourists and the ongoing employment hotels generate.

Maybe these protesters just don't like hotels

Paul Richardson, Trevallyn

HOW can the Macquarie Point infrastructure site be called by many as AFL stadium when it is not involved in the ownership? Besides AFL fixtures there, will play a backseat role compared to showcasing a much-needed injection of diverse local, national and international talent on offer all year round.

For instance, imagine highlighting part of a dynamic DARK MOFO there. Once completed, Hobart and the rest of Tassie will light up the world even more.

Rob Booth, Riverside

SO, against the wishes of 70 per cent of the Tasmanian population, it seems to be a done deal! The PM has announced $65m for UTAS stadium to bring the capacity to 21,000. Then he announces that the Hobart stadium will be built with a capacity of 23,000. I bet my bottom dollar that more people will attend UTAS rather than drive for 5 hours from up the coast to Hobart! I also predict that in 10-15 years this monolithic edifice gracing Macquarie Point will have the epitaph of 'Rockliff's White Elephant! What a disgrace that he bowed down before the AFL's blackmail.

Glennis Sleurink, Launceston

GOVERNMENTS all around the country are increasing spending on police riot equipment. They can see that their decisions are displeasing the public so much that discontent is growing and they think riot equipment is the solution rather than good decision making.

Peter Coxhead, Derby

FEW people have been persuaded that the oldest child of the former Mayor of Launceston, the Premier of Tasmania or the Prime Minister of Australia should respectively automatically succeed their parent as the unelected leader of the city, state or country.

Why then have so many people allowed themselves to be "brainwashed" into accepting a monarchy at the highest level of political governance for this country?

The institution of monarchy is characterised by inheritance of the leadership role. Basically, a select family has a monopoly. That could be regarded as a non-contestable, anti-competitive, closed shop arrangement. The monarch's top representative in Australia is the appointed (not elected) Governor-General.

Monarchy is not synonymous with values of meritocracy, democracy or equality, though individual occupants of the role might still serve with distinction.

The pomp, ceremony, wealth and privilege enjoyed by the monarchy may seem unfair and out of touch to many disadvantaged people. Why not spend the money on those people who are struggling?

Societies have generally moved on from (say) the tribal situation where the "medicine man" role was passed from father to son. Nowadays, we might prefer a skilled doctor of our choice. Perhaps a different arrangement is also needed to determine the "tribal chief".

Australia does not have a House of Lords, so we do not need to slavishly follow the British example. Surely we can do better than a monarchy if we put our minds to it?

Our elected representatives should be able to make an affirmation of allegiance to the Australian people rather than to the heirs and successors of an outdated monarchy in another country. Mark Webb, Launceston