Telstra cops a lot of criticism, much of it deserved.

However, when it comes to public payphones, a reality check is appropriate.

Rewind a few years to the former Telecom and the Postmaster General, there were payphones dotted at regular intervals.

Mobile phones and the internet didn't exist, milk was delivered by horse-driven carriages and television was black and white.

Fast forward to the modern era and nearly everyone has a mobile phone.

Admittedly there are some people who haven't adopted mobile technology, some who can't afford it and some who are too young to use it.

For these people, public payphones may occasionally be necessary.

Fortunately, many service stations, shopping centres and hotels provide public phones as a commercial service.

When it comes to maintaining payphones on residential streets, the cost needs to be balanced against the need.

Unfortunately, increasing vandalism has escalated the cost in many cases while the demand is diminishing.

It is unreasonable to expect Telstra to provide this service in residential areas where it cannot recover costs and vandalism is rife.

A more realistic view is that Telstra should be required to maintain payphones at post offices and postal agencies, where security is more easily assured.

While there may be a sentimental attachment to having payphones on street corners, like delivering milk to the doorstep, commonsense suggests it is time to move on and face reality.

Telstra is not the villain in this case. If communities want payphones in areas where they aren't viable, it should be a government responsibility.

The wine industry has commendably developed a mostly self-help strategy to tackle the significant challenges it faces.

The Wine Restructuring Action Agenda has urged growers to cut production of grapes and wine by 20pc to solve the industry's over-production problems.

The report was a joint effort of the major industry organisations and confirms a surplus of 100 million cases a year, which is expected to double within two years.

This unfortunate situation is purely a result of market forces and needs an adjustment in the market to rectify itself.

To some extent the problems were predictable up to a decade ago.

Australian grape production grew quickly as exports enjoyed a seemingly endless upward trend.

All bubbles burst eventually.

The South American and eastern European wine industries were relatively undeveloped and have competed increasingly with Australian wine across the price spectrum.

The Australian industry has also expanded outside traditional grape-growing areas such as Coonawarra and the Barossa Valley.

At some point production was going to exceed the demand for supply.

For that reason the industry is right not to seek a government bail-out.

However, there is still a role for governments to assist.

The restructuring agenda seeks government support for growers to exit the industry and that's a reasonable proposition.

It is not sustainable to continue producing grapes at prices below the cost of production.

Rather than see the industry wither on the vine, the government should help growers to diversify and switch to other crops.

Failure to do so will be to the detriment of rural communities.

Remembrance Day is a time to reflect on the horrors of war and to remember those who paid the supreme sacrifice.

It is largely a melancholy occasion. Certainly there is nothing to celebrate.

Remembrance Day marks the Armistice to end the horrific First World War.

Most Australian families were touched by the "Great War" in some way, and for those of us who lost relatives in the conflict, Remembrance Day has a special meaning.

It is a time to think about young lives cut short, the folly of war without significant cause and the tragic legacies it can leave.

The aftermath of the war was felt for more than a generation as survivors struggled to deal with their demons while adjusting back to family life, the workforce and normal society after experiencing unmentionable terror.

Poet Siegfried Sassoon wrote in "Aftermath":

"Look up, and swear by the slain of the war that you'll never forget!"

That is a universal message we should all contemplate on Remembrance Day.

In 1993 then Prime Minister Paul Keating urged us to learn the lesson of the war - that it was about ordinary people.

"And the lesson was that they were not ordinary," he said.

"On all sides they were the heroes of that war; not the generals and the politicians, but the soldiers and sailors and nurses – those who taught us to endure hardship, to show courage, to be bold as well as resilient, to believe in ourselves, to stick together."

Lest we forget.

In A thought-provoking article this week, senior Fairfax columnist Kenneth Davidson floats the idea of scrapping the Future Fund to invest the money in nation building.

The Future Fund was established by an Act of Parliament in 2006 to assist future governments meet the cost of public sector superannuation liabilities by delivering investment returns on contributions.

As at September 30, there was $64.25 billion invested.

Davidson argues that budget papers showed superannuation liabilities had already peaked in 2006 and were declining as defined benefit schemes were being closed down in favour of lump-sum payments, as operates in the private sector.

"The setting up of the fund outside the normal budget based on annual appropriations and not subject to cabinet and parliamentary approval, is wasteful, an affront to democratic process and potentially corrupt," he wrote.

Regardless of whether the fund's purpose is valid or not, Davidson mounts a strong case for investment priorities to change.

The portfolio update at September 30 shows nearly a third of the $64.25 billion is invested in shares, including more than $13 million in overseas shares.

It was revealed in the Future Fund's annual report last week that five subsidiaries have been set up in the Cayman Islands tax haven and no tax is paid by these subsidiaries to the Australian Government.

It's unclear how the public interest is served by using a tax dodge to invest taxpayers' money in overseas shares.

The Future Fund Act should be changed to legislate for a minimum investment in Australian infrastructure and development bonds.

Australia is effectively a republic today.

We have a head of state, the Governor General, who is appointed by a Prime Minister who leads the governing party in an elected parliament.

We are, as former Prime Minister John Howard affirmed yesterday, a "crowned republic".

A crowned republic is one where the sovereign retains some of the formal executive and legislative powers of the state and provides leadership above politics.

In Australia, that power is exercised by the Governor General.

In any constitutional monarchy, the Crown is important not for the power it wields, but for the power it denies others.

A directly elected president, however, would be able to claim a mandate, which may be in conflict with the parliamentary mandate of the government.

There's a saying that if it's not broken, don't fix it.

That was clearly the view of many people who voted 10 years ago to retain the status quo.

Australia's constitution has served the country well for 108 years.

Vice-regal powers have only been exercised when parliaments have been deadlocked either in terms of an unclear majority in the lower house, or an unresolved impasse between the two houses of parliament.

Even the controversial intervention of Sir John Kerr in 1975 was in accordance with the legal advice of the Chief Justice. And in that case, the people ultimately resolved the impasse through a decisive election result.

As for the monarch, her role is purely symbolic. And what better custodian of that symbol could any country expect than the Queen of Australia?

The influence of the Federal Government is evident in the appointment of board members for Regional Development Australia (RDA) in the South East.

RDA is the long-awaited successor to the previous government's Area Consultative Committees.

The fact it has taken 23 months to implement a new regional development structure says something about the government's priorities.

From a federal perspective, regional development has been in limbo since December 2007.

In South Australia, the RDA merges the former ACCs with the State Government's regional development boards and includes local government as an equal partner.

That makes sense and most people can see the potential benefits.

However, the appointment of board members suggests a change in focus that may be less welcome.

According to the website of the Limestone Coast Regional Development Board, the former state body's key objective was "to grow the economic base of the region".

However, there was no mention of economic development in Monday's announcement of RDA board appointments.

Instead, there were vague references to providing input, delivering services and coordinating planning.

A Labor-majority committee of the House of Representatives last November handed down a report recommending a new framework for regional infrastructure funding with a greater focus on community projects and local government involvement.

The new focus on community and social infrastructure prompted a dissenting report from Nationals MP Paul Neville, who said a holistic approach was needed - one that included business and economic development.

It would be a shame if economic development was sacrificed for the sake of an ideological agenda.

Next year's local government elections will be contested in a new environment after Parliament passed changes to implement caretaker provisions and stop multiple voting.

Every person will now have only one chance to vote in each council election, even if they own another property or properties in the same area.

Each council will have to adopt a caretaker policy for the conduct of council and staff during the election period.

There will be legal consequences for candidates failing to withdraw or retract misleading material if requested to do so by the Electoral Commissioner.

And landlords, business owners and business renters will be required to enrol before each election if they want to vote.

The commendable changes all enhance democracy, accountability and transparency.

While property owners should have the right to vote as ratepayers, even if they're not on the electoral roll, it was anomalous they potentially had more than one vote.

By requiring landlords and business owners to enrol before each election, they are quite reasonably being asked to demonstrate an interest and commitment to the electoral process.

The introduction of caretaker provisions follows similar legislation in Victoria.

State and Federal Parliaments have followed the Westminster convention of an outgoing government not undertaking any new policy initiatives.

There was no such convention in local government.

In some instances elsewhere, mayors and councils continued to make policy decisions, announcements and executive appointments up until the day of the election.

This was to the electoral disadvantage of other candidates and potentially left the incoming council with a legacy it didn't support.