Dear Aidan,

Darwin wrote nothing about genes or viruses as he didn't know of their existence. The transfer of genes by viruses negates nothing that he postulated nor his theory. He knew characteristics were inherited, but he did not know the physical basis of heredity.

There has been much discovered since Darwin about mechanisms of heredity, but, to the best of my knowledge, none of the new discoveries have negated anything he wrote.

The new discoveries have added to but not superseded Darwinian theory.

Dear David F.,

I think that most people would willingly pay higher
taxes if it meant that our society would reap the
benefits in services such as education, health,
infrastructure, and so on. But the taxes have to be
fair. By that I mean that they should not be targeted
at the poor and low-income families while the rich
are privy to all sorts of tax exemptions.

Foxy wrote: "I think that most people would willingly pay higher
taxes if it meant that our society would reap the
benefits in services such as education, health,
infrastructure, and so on. But the taxes have to be
fair. By that I mean that they should not be targeted
at the poor and low-income families while the rich
are privy to all sorts of tax exemptions."

Dear Foxy,

I favour using taxes to redistribute wealth and provide social benefits for all. However, I don't think most people agree with that. If they did, we would not have a GST. Our political parties to some extent reflect the opinions of the people who vote for them. I think people prefer bribes like support for sporting clubs and spectacles to a fair taxation system. If they did they would support the public schools to provide a good education for all Australian children. I don't think most Australians give a fig for fairness.

Australia has the myths of a fairgo and the larrikin. In reality I think most want what they can get and conform to the mob.

I don't think most people in Australia would willingly pay higher taxes for a fairer society. Can you imagine any Australian political party with a campaign slogan: Higher taxes for a fair society?

The single flaw in this argument is that most independent schools, whilst being owned by churches limit their "indoctrination" to a single 40 min religion and ethics class once a fortnight, probably less than public schools.

If this is being used as a vehicle to justify reducing funding, it is spectacularly weak.

Sheesh, things have really changed since I went to a religious school then!

We had two 40 minute classes per week and they didn’t contain anything to do with ethics. In fact, you probably would have lost marks if, at any point, you suggested that ethics could replace religious morality.

We also had what was referred to as “devotions” every morning for the first half hour of the school day, which was effectively a church service - hymns, a sermon, the lot.

Dear Shadow Minister,

My husband attended Christian Brothers from
Grade 4 up to Matriculation (admittedly it
was a while ago) and they had religious classes every
day, and church services every week and religious exams
at the end of every term.