Feeble festival not in the same league as Barry Humphries

With their backflip on recognising the comic genius of Barry Humphries, the directors of the Melbourne International Comedy Festival sound more like they are in a circus than a comic organisation (“Festival backflips on Humphries tribute”, 25/4).

Riley Brown, Bondi Beach, NSW

The Melbourne International Comedy Festival, which cancelled long-time international comedian Barry Humphries, certainly have tickets on themselves (“Even in death Barry stirs the possums”, 25/4).

Elizabeth Moser, Highton, Vic

How many of the current Melbourne International Comedy Festival acts could perform a two-hour show, hold the audience with no walkouts, keep everyone laughing at themselves without cringing and no F-bombs to fill in the lack of something funny? Humphries did this for the bulk of his career.

Murray Horne, Cressy, Vic

Perhaps the Melbourne International Comedy Festival should introduce an award for the best politically correct performance They could call it The Wokeie.

Thos Puckett, Ashgrove, Qld

I expect that part of Barry Humphries’ funeral cortege will include Sir Les Patterson’s stretched FJ Holden.

John Kostanic, Applecross, WA

Thinking about dear Barry Humphries passing reminded me of going to see his show in about 1964 at the Savoy Theatre in Russell St. The previous week Joan Sutherland had been singing at Her Majesty’s and had roses thrown on to the stage. So a friend and I dressed in red coats, as Edna did then, wore flashy glasses and carried a frumpy handbag, walked in and sat in the front row. When Edna finished her show, we didn’t throw roses but gladiolas. Now you know who started her using them! What a genius Barry Humphries was. Never be forgotten.

Anne Marks, Drouin, Vic

The director of the Melbourne International Comedy Festival sure is getting plenty of laughs, but at – not with. Indeed, one of the festival’s Barry Award cancellers was called out by the great man himself when he said she was “about as funny as an orphanage on fire”. RIP Barry.

Mandy Macmillan, Singleton, NSW

There is an Old English word – both noun and adjective – that needs to be brought back into common usage to describe the extremely unfunny organisers of the misnamed Melbourne International Comedy Festival. Their treatment of Barry Humphries, after he expressed an opinion in the transgender debate, fits them like the old word churl, defined as a mean or rude-spirited person, also a peasant. The Melbourne International Festival of Churls – a perfect fit.

John McHarg, Maylands, WA

Voicing concern

The comments from George Williams (“Voice fear ‘not borne out’ by SG advice”, 25/4) include the statement that the Solicitor-General’s recent opinion states that the voice “is no more than an advisory body that will not give rise to waves of litigation”.

That is contrary to what paragraph 19(c) of the opinion actually says: “litigation concerning the validity of decisions of the executive government is already very common” and it does not “clog up the courts, or … cause government to grind to a halt”. That appears to admit the possibility of additional litigation and ignores the delays it causes and the unlimited scope of the matters the voice can comment on.

Professor Williams justifies his interpretation on the possibility that “parliament could decide whether, when and how the advice from the voice must be considered”. Those hypothetical limits could also be subject to litigation and may not prevent much wider litigation.

Ian Wilson, Chapel Hill, Qld

Most people on the No side of the voice debate say they would support constitutional recognition, while those on the Yes side want the voice included in the Constitution. So why not give the people of Australia a real choice by having both options in the referendum? That way there will almost certainly be a positive outcome.

Burt Bosma, Surrey Hills, Vic

The Solicitor-General’s advice was wrong to conclude that the proposed voice amendment to the Constitution enhanced representative and responsible government. The advice reveals the establishment of the voice is co-ordinated by the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which is an executive agency within the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is apparent that Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people already have the capacity to make representations to the executive without the need for a constitutional amendment or legislation under section 51 (xvi) of the Constitution. What then is the real agenda in pursuing constitutional change?

Greg Stevens, Adelaide