Andrew Wilkie, local government Councillors and pokies:

David Thackrah, Australian Democrats Member, writes: Re. “How Wilkie’s early decision will determine the government” (yesterday, item 1). Evidently Andrew Wilkie has exposed a serious deficiency in political representation in Tasmania if the Royal Hobart Hospital is in desperate need. Neither the Laberals or The Greens have been taking any notice of their constituent’s needs.

Meanwhile the thousands of “undeciders” who recorded blank informal votes have committed social sabotage on our Australian community. Maybe they would prefer a corrupt central government along the lines of a Chinese government knowing they would never be called to the ballot box again. Or given the privilege! Specifically if they are drawing government benefits.

James Forbes writes: Former MHR for McMillan, the late Arthur Hewson, held a federal and local government position simultaneously for a  short period. Councillors receive an allowance/stipend to the elected position — in essence, they (i.e. the Councillors) are the notional “employer”.

However working as an employee of a State Government or its tentacles of Statutory Authorities for a salary/wage is quite a different matter.

David Kelly writes: I note with some disappointment that in the story penned by Stephen Mayne that, inter alia, speaks to the apparent success he believes Andrew Wilkie will have on his quest for poker machine reform, that NOWHERE in the story is it declared that Stephen ran for the Senate on a anti-pokies ticket.

I really thought that Crikey was meant to be a stronghold of credible and un-biased journalism, however to let Mr Mayne speak to his crusade without at least acknowledging it is a particular interest area of his is rather poor.

For what it is worth I am also very concerned about the proliferation of poker machines, and believe the area is ripe for reform, however that does not condone simple bad journalism.

The Constitution:

Niall Clugston writes: Ralph Brading (yesterday, comments) queries the status of parties in the Constitution. As he notes, parties aren’t mentioned, except in the amendment regarding the filling of Senate vacancies. The reason the House of Representatives isn’t mentioned is that vacancies there require a by-election.

While not necessarily “independents”, all MPs are elected as individuals, and are free, like Billy Hughes or Meg Lees, to leave the party they were elected for.

Then again, the Prime Minister isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. Legally, the PM doesn’t have to be a member of parliament, a human being, or even a living thing…

The Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination:

H S Mackenzie writes: Re. “CERD committee serves; ball in Oz court” (yesterday, item 11). Robyn Seth-Purdie’s strident hyperbole does nothing to advance her cause.

Compare her piece with David Marr’s in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald. Marr too reports the findings of the CERD Committee and he too finds Australia wanting in regard to its work towards eliminating racism. But he does so in a measured way that is likely to build support for further action.

Seth-Purdie’s holier-than-thou rant on the other hand cannot help but bring out the response, articulated in today’s comments by Justin Templer, of escaping responsibility by pointing the finger at the judges and wishing facetiously that we could be as good at human rights as China, Algeria and Togo.

Justin Pettizini writes: Robyn Seth-Purdie says that racism is “embedded in the Constitution”. It is? Where exactly? The original Section 51 (xxvi) was amended over 40 years ago and I can’t find anything else that discriminates on the basis of race.

Cigarette plain packaging:

David Havyatt writes: Re. “Smoking kills, says big tobacco on hacked plain packaging campaign site” (yesterday, item 3). I know this was about a hack of the website — but it provides an opening to ask how stupid the retailers think we are. Their campaign is premised on the idea that plain packaging won’t work — but the retailers are campaigning because it will hurt their businesses.

Where else do the retailers think the smokers are going to go for the cigarettes they are still going to buy?

Tel Aviv:

Rafael Cohen writes: Re. “Letter from Tel Aviv: I feel safer here than in Melbourne” (yesterday, item 14). Only setting the record straight here. The Dolphinarium suicide bomber attack took place at the 1st of June 2001 (well over the nineties according to my calendar).

I can still remember how all the windows in my flat, 4 km away to the north, shuttered that night just before we heard the rows of emergency vehicles rushing down the main street. 21 teenage killed, 132 injured.