‘Hilltops’ is an invention, a fantasy, used by people to try to convince us that it is something better than what we’ve lost.

‘Hilltops’ has no significant history, no identity. Boorowa, Young and Harden are places, with a history, a tradition, an identity, to which their residents can relate and of which they can be proud.

These three towns have a proud heritage forged through years of endeavour and by events and activities which make them unique.

‘Hilltops’ means nothing, except as being a hastily scrabbled together excuse for a clutch of councils involved in a ‘shotgun wedding.’

Nothing happens in Hilltops. Whatever happens in the relevant area takes place in either Boorowa, Harden and Young. So please don’t refer to something happening in Hilltops, because, in fact, it is happening in one of the constituent areas.

The first meeting of the ‘Hilltops Council’ was one instance of why people might not want to ‘own’ the Hilltops brand, Here was an opportunity to heal wounds and mend fences.

It was a chance for those who espoused the new council area to endeavour to make the majority of ratepayers part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

That opportunity was squandered. People attending were made to feel irrelevant to the whole operation. Of course this is in keeping with the obvious philosophy of the Baird government, which has displayed a breathtaking level of arrogance. Not only has this anti-democratic government trampled on the rights and expectations of the people of the state, but it has also sought to destroy the livelihoods of many of them. Those who have had the courage to speak out against this juggernaut have been forced to pay a significant price, as did Katrina Hodgkinson and her colleague Chris Gulaptis. It seems that representing the wishes of your constituents is not on Baird’s or Grant’s agenda.

Please God, there will be a reckoning. Eventually Baird and his cronies will have to go to the people, many of whom he has treated with contempt. Already the polls are showing that his support is collapsing, and when the consequences of some of his legislation becomes obvious I’m sure it will collapse further. As the famous revolutionary song says: “You have nothing if you have no rights”, and Australians, who are used to living in a democratic, liberal society, are very jealous of their rights. Let’s see how the ‘little Hitlers’ of Macquarie Street go when they have to face the ballot box.

I have great difficulty understanding how Senator Leyonhjelm claims being called "angry white male" violates RDA 18C.

I don't see how "angry white male" is "reasonably likely" (ie: as determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community) and "in all the circumstances" to offend, etc.

Last I checked, Leyonhjelm is "white" and "male."  Objective statements.  In many of the photos I've seen of him, his facial expression exhibits all the hallmarks of being "angry."  Interpretation.

In writing this letter, I re-read some of Andrew Bolt's writing.  I have no Aboriginal ancestry; I found his words disgusting and reasonably likely to vilify (ie: incite hatred) and intimidate (ie: cause fear of physical harm) others.  Similar sorts of items were published prior to November 1938, in Germany, ensuring that Kristallnacht would have its desired effect.  An excellent - and tragic - example of vilification and intimidation.

I hope the HRC bounces Leyonhjelm's claim for being frivolous.