Katy Gallagher has underlined in bold the error of not doing the same thing with political funding, because she has shown we have no credible means of blocking politicians' access to public money for personal political use. Her actions are as brazen as they are contemptible, and the only question is which is worse: the theft of public money (for that is surely what it is) for the benefit of politicians, or the act of putting government decisions on the auction block for sale to the highest "donor".

There is no good side to this, except for the outspokenness of Shane Rattenbury, who could have tailed along quietly in the background instead of publicly voicing his opposition.

This is a bad outcome for the public and a terrible one for honest governance in the ACT.

David Robertson, Red Hill

Now that the ACT Labor government has sold its soul and established itself as a government for sale ("Experts condemn donation caps decision", November30, p4), it leaves voters with some difficult decisions, come the next election.

One assumes Labor feels comfortable in the knowledge that the ACT has traditionally been a left-leaning constituency and possibly rightly believes the majority of its residents would rather eat their neighbour's dog than vote Liberal. The recent combination, however, of the dubious light rail proposal, dramas with the hospitals and the new "open for bribes" stratagem, must have even the most seasoned Labor supporters questioning their loyalties.

Given the Greens also support the light rail and that one can hardly support the current federal government in any shape or form, what is a poor voter to do? It would be nice to think out there, somewhere, is a party that wants to do the right thing and refuses to be sold to the highest bidder, but I simply cannot bring one to mind. Maybe I should refrain from eating the neighbour's dog and put him up as a candidate for the next election. He'd certainly be getting my vote.

Nicola Watson, Turner

The organisers of Voices in the Park need to do a little soul-searching. Over half the patrons felt it necessary to leave the concert after an hour of steady rain, amid a vivid display of nearby lightning bolts.

There is a wet weather strategy for this event, and it is the AIS. The expenses incurred in this fall-back position would be factored into the premium ticket prices. And yet it was not activated. Instead, ticket holders were advised on Friday that given only a "possibility of showers" that were "unlikely to be significant", the event would go ahead at the arboretum as planned.

However, the BoM forecast at the time this message went out guaranteed showers and, more ominously, forecast a "late afternoon storm" for Sunday.

One would think "late afternoon" coincides neatly with the concert's timeframe of 4.45pm to 8.30pm – and indeed it did.

The organisers' weather assessment has been revealed as compromised.

Due to the organisers' breach of trust, no one got full value from this year's concert: not the patrons, not the performers, and certainly not the youth choir, which spent most of its time exposed to rain.

Paul Varsanyi, Kambah

In his reply to my letter (November26), the director of Roads ACT speaks of consultative processes rather than the resultant hazardous circumstances the road-marking changes have delivered.

Maintaining safe roads was also mentioned. In this case, impairment to drivers' line of sight due to enforced new parking practices at the surrounds of the netball courts and restrictions to reasonable traffic flows along the eastern side of Streeton Drive, including at the Bangalay Crescent intersection, are hazards introduced by the new road markings and parking restrictions.

No explanation was provided as to why ACT government condones the resultant illegal parking on the road verges when a readily usable and safer option of parking on the western side of the street is available. We note that the maxim of maintaining road safety is selectively applied, as witnessed by the dangerous traffic conditions due to parking practices on Flinders Way, including at, but not limited to, the stretch at Boys' Grammar.

The issue is not about consultative processes, but who injects the political ideology into the final decisions, such as the perceptible "we make the laws" justification.

Patrick Robertson, Rivett

As a former colleague of David Eastman, I have always been troubled by his conviction for the murder of Assistant Commissioner Colin Winchester. Though I have never been a friend to David, I was relieved when his conviction was quashed. The decision by the DPP to retry David beggars belief. If it was not possible to hold a fair trial 19 years ago, then there is surely even less chance now.

If we assume he is guilty (which I do not) then he has arguably already served an appropriate sentence. If we assume he is not guilty (as I assume we now all must, as there is a presumption of innocence inherent in a retrial) then a gross injustice has been done.

The priority for the ACT legal system should surely be to help David re-establish as normal a life as quickly as possible.

Virginia Young, Turner

I am no lawyer, but I have always thought the David Eastman verdict doubtful. So, given all the publicity over many years, how do we find 12 jury members in Canberra who hold no opinion on the case? And, if he was to be acquitted this time, one would think substantial compensation would be sought?

John Robbins, Farrer

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young must stop distorting facts to pursue her crusade for illegal immigrants. On ABC's 7pm news bulletin, the senator stated that the two pregnant women were "detained on the bus". Arrant nonsense. They're there of their own volition and the bus door is open ready for them to disembark.

Instead of distorting the facts, the senator would do more good by getting them off the bus into care, which would immediately be provided. Distortion of facts does not help the cause of illegal immigrants or that of the somewhat discredited Greens.

N. Bailey, Nicholls

Let's hope comments by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on Australia needing to have nuclear energy puts an end to the twaddle that she is a person of substance and a potential leader.

Her history as Foreign Minister, like that of her "good friend" Kevin Rudd, has been a disaster: foreign aid slashed to the neediest in the world; Ebola response tardy and inadequate; ineffective in combating the "turn back the boat" policy that damages the relationship with Indonesia; bizarre and intemperate response to President Barack Obama's comments on climate change and the Great Barrier Reef; and having no impact on President Vladimir Putin (not that that could be expected). Her "success" at the United Nations Security Council rested on being able to read from a speech and briefing prepared by her departmental officials.

Jenny Handke, Kambah

Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop wants a debate on nuclear power. Presumably, she wants the same sort of debate she and the government of the day promoted in 2006, when she was science minister. The rhetoric then was exactly the same as now: "Let's have a sensible debate about all potential energy sources." All potential energy sources?

Why then did the 2006 inquiry look at only one form of power, nuclear, and appoint a nuclear physicist, Ziggy Switkowski, to head it? Hey presto, a recommendation for 25 reactors around the country; who'd have thought?

A genuine debate, on the other hand, is exactly what Australia needs. Let's hear from wind energy experts about what wind energy can offer, and from solar experts about what solar can offer, and let's talk about how government support for decent renewable energy targets could make a huge difference. Let's examine the myths about "24/7 base load" and "zero-emissions nuclear power" and let's examine the nuclear industry's history of broken promises, and other countries' experiences, too, including Japan.

From a government that has such contempt for science that we no longer have a science minister, that is doing its utmost to destroy our renewable energy targets, and that is led by a man who believes coal is good for humanity, we finally seem to have some interest in climate change. How strange that the mining industry stands to profit, yet again.

Dr Sue Wareham, vice-president, Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia)

Despite its decisive win, the new Victorian government will have to contend with a mixed bag of micro-parties that received a minuscule percentage of the popular vote and hold the balance of power in the Legislative Council.

The solution is simple. With 15 chambers of Parliament, Australia suffers from a plague of politicians. Let's have a campaign against the enormously wasteful anachronism of state upper houses. These highly costly, lavish clubs for, in the most part, trusted party hacks and self-interested minority groups, should have been consigned to the garbage heap of history long ago.

Our far-sighted Kiwi cousins abolished their upper house in 1951 and Queensland got rid of theirs way back in 1922. It's high time the remaining states did the same thing.

Ken Maher, Ainslie

I don't know where Patrick Jones (Letters, November28) gets his information, but his description of international diplomatic practice is wrong. Governments do not "clear" their leaders' speeches with another government, even if the speech is bring given in the other country. A speech being given to another parliament or for another official purpose might be shown in advance to the other government as a matter of courtesy, but not for approval or to be "cleared".

Julie Bishop is quite entitled to send President Barack Obama information about the Great Barrier Reef, if she thought his speech revealed some ignorance of what Australia was doing to protect the reef. But this is an unusual step, and it would be seen by the White House (correctly, and as it was presumably intended to be) as a rap across the knuckles. Moreover, it risks annoying the White House and President Obama and being counter-productive, all the more because it breeches the longstanding protocol that communications between governments occur between counterparts or equivalents.

Trevor Wilson, Holder

It's hard to believe the federal Coalition government is actually performing worse than its Labor predecessor. Fewer achievements, woefully misdirected policies, significant community unease and a worsening budget have been compounded by overt confusion within government ranks, to effectively surpass the awfulness of Labor's dismal final year. Public utterances give little hope for the future.

The Prime Minister is either dissembling again or demonstrates he has lost his grip on reality when he describes his first year in office as a "year of achievement". Scott Morrison encapsulates a good part of the problem when he suggests "we need to work harder on the politics and managing the politics".

No, Mr Morrison, the government needs to work harder at governing, not politics. The preoccupation with ideology and politics and the consequential manipulation, point scoring and fibbing is half of what's wrong. The other half is who you should be governing for, to which the answer is the people, not cronies and other vested interests.

If you simply govern well and in the people's interest, the rest will look after itself. You won't have to "sell" anything.

Julian Robinson, Narrabundah

Who could forget the "Ju-Liar" campaign? Where is the Tony-Liar campaign? The "unbiased" shock jocks and conservative commentators seem strangely silent.

Warwick Budd, Nicholls

Full marks to Mark Dapin for exposing further the complex matrix impacting many but not all Vietnam veterans and for stating that the number of balls drawn in the National Service ballot matched the required intake ("Nashos' emotions still raw after years", Forum, November 28, p4).

However, there is some evidence that the number of balls or marbles marked with a particular birthday were often more than one to tilt the intake outcome in favour of birthdays which would generate more skills that aligned with the Army's needs.

In other words the National Service ballot was not absolutely fair and true in as much as some birthdays had more chance of being drawn out than others.

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the introduction of this form of National Service ballot, a comprehensive "Statement of Facts" associated with the ballot and its methodology should be forthcoming. For example, was there more than one marble or ball for particular days during the period of this ballot?

In hindsight it should have been all in relating to the 20-year-old cohort, both genders but with a Peace Corps-type option for the surplus and for any conscientious objectors.

Tim Fischer, Boree Creek, NSW

Rationally, criticism of the remarkable public response to the death of Phil Hughes by correspondents McKew, Fraser and Murphy (Letters, December 1) may have a point. But at times of tragedy like this it's better to follow grandma's time-honoured advice: if you can't say something positive or comforting, don't say anything.

Phil Teece, Sunshine Bay, NSW

A TRUE LEADER

I can't help but admire Wallaby DavidPocock for his stand on coalmining in our state forests. Iknow little about rugby union. However, the game is fortunate tohave one of its luminaries taking a stand on community issues of suchimportance. Thank you, David.

Michael Lee, Amaroo

DUD VOTES WORTHLESS

The ACT government has announced it will be quadrupling the amount of public funding parties receive per vote to $8. With 260,000 voters, that's just over $2million. Well, I imagine, for every informal vote they get nothing.

Peter Dahler, Calwell

IN AGREEMENT

Joe Murphy (Letters, December1) speaks for many: it was a slow news week.

Barrie Smillie, Duffy

CUT BROADCAST HOURS

One simple solution to the Abbott government's proposed cuts to the ABC's budget would be to reduce television broadcast to around 12hours a day. For example, middayto midnight. This would be similar tothe number of hours broadcast when television was first introduced.

P.J.Carthy, McKellar

THE GREAT ENFORCER

Further to Ken Brazel's remarks (Letters, December1), Speaker Bronwyn Bishop is, in cricket terms, averaging a dismissal rate of more than 300per cent– that is, ejecting 273 members in 86 days. If there is any world championship title for the most parliamentary ejections, MsBishop must surely be in the running.

Sankar Kumar Chatterjee, Evatt

ABSOLUTION NOT SO EASY

Tony Abbott will be hoping that all is forgiven for his 2014 sins and that he has a clean slate to start 2015 after his little confessional in the parliamentary court yard on Monday. Over Christmas, Australians should remember forget leopards do not change their spots.

D.J.Fraser, Mudgeeraba, Qld

PASSING THE BUCK

When Labor won the recent South Australian election, Tony Abbott opined that our preferential voting system sometimes gets the answer wrong. The system seems to have got it right in Victoria, because now all he says is that the behaviour of his federal government wasn't a factor in the state election. We can only wonder what excuse he'll come up with next time.

Steven Mackenzie, Coopers Plains, Qld

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).