A right royal rort
Michael Luxton writes:
Re. "Royal rates: what you'll pay for Will and Kate's Aussie adventure
" (yesterday). I thought the age of entitlement was over? Perhaps it is still going for inherited entitlement.
Jim Hart writes:
An estimated $2 million for a 10-day royal event seems pretty meagre compared with the $50 million that Victorians pay for privilege of hosting KingBernie Ecclestone's jesters at next week's four-day Formula 1 festival. As for the RAAF support, Will and Kate just get a tarted-up Boeing 737 while Bernie's boys get daily performances by the Roulettes plus an F/A-18. (And for good measure, a "Qantas jet flyover" on Sunday -- something to tell the grandkids about.)
Robyn Godbehere writes:
If the trip for these three royals is only going to cost in the vicinity of $2 million, then that is money well spent when you look at the international press that will be following them around and will be sending out to the rest of the world. If only Australia can retain its dignity during this time, then we should come off good. If there is any adverse reporting, then we will come off not so good and the money will be wasted. Here’s hoping Tony Abbott can manage.
Danuta Slowiak writes:
And how much did we pay to rescue lost voyager from UK few years ago? How much for Lance Armstrong to take part in the Tour Down Under? How much for other idiots who are not adding anything to our nation? But the best of all: how much do you pay the politicians who have destroyed our land and are still bloodsuckers on fat pensions for as long as they live and who are still earning an additional income? The list is countless, so stop talking that the visit of the royals will be too expensive. It is only the four-year income of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, who have pushed Australia on its knees. Be real. Often one has to respect history and in this case they are continuation of our roots with the British Empire, whether we like it or not.
Australia can process its own refugees
Margery Clark writes:
Re. "The Indian solution: how a subcontinent strategy would save lives -- and money
" (yesterday). Why an Indian solution? Australia is more than capable and has the advantage of not being a Third World venue. Who knows, the politicians might gain more respect in the eyes of the electorate ... if Malcolm Fraser did with the Vietnamese so can Tony Abbott et al.