Mark Farrell, Turner

Thursday's editorial regarding temporary law courts ("Container plan costly and questionable", Times2, July 9, p2) revealed how little thought the ACT government puts into running the ACT.

The rebuilding of a perfectly functional and presentable law court to provide unnecessary legal accommodation at an exorbitant cost is poor thinking.

All other capital cities I know of have magistrate courts where they are of service to their citizens. Common sense would dictate we convert two of the present magistrate courts to a Supreme Court and build six more courts north and south of Civic in blocks of three.

With a little imagination and a good architect one of the existing vacant office blocks at Woden could be made into three magistrate courts with space left over for legal offices, a ACT services shopfront or whatever ancillary infrastructure that would fit; I imagine at the most it would take up two floors with room left over for expansion.

I suggested this in a letter answered by Mr Corbell. He replied that the cost of security staff would make it too expensive. Surely spending more than $400 million on a replacement courthouse is going to be a lot more expensive than security staff?

Howard Carew, Isaacs

Current ACT law does not adequately provide for the cases of people who still have drugs in their bodies but are not affected by them at the time of driving.

Drink-driving and drug-driving are different. The level of alcohol in drivers is measurable, and studies have demonstrated the effect of those levels on driving. Different levels of alcohol attract different penalties.

The same cannot be done for drugs. Tests show the presence or otherwise of drugs, but not the level, and not the effect. Marijuana, for example, can stay in one's system for weeks.

ACT law provides driving disqualifications for first-time drug-affected driving that match those for a repeat-offender mid-range drink-driver: an automatic three years off the road, reducible to a minimum of six months. A repeat ACT drug-driver faces five years, reducible to 12 months.

In NSW, a repeat mid-range drink-driver faces the same automatic disqualification, but a minimum of 12 months. A repeat NSW drug-affected driver faces the same, but a first-time drug-affected driver faces an automatic 12 months, reducible to a minimum six months.

That is a distinct difference to the ACT. And the distinction gets even finer. NSW provides, in a separate section of its legislation, for those drivers with a drug found in their systems but with no demonstrable affect on them. They face only an automatic six months off the road, reducible to a minimum of three months.

While ACT magistrates are alive to the facts and circumstances of each case (was the person affected or not?) and can sentence accordingly, might it not be better to draft a specific section along the lines of what NSW has done?

Andrew Fraser, Armstrong Legal, Canberra City

How can magistrate Peter Dingwall find the animal abuse by Annette Banks of Theodore ("RSPCA fury at court penalty for maggot-infested dog", July 8, p3) is worth a fine of only $350 for disgraceful neglect of both her dogs? Why did this magistrate not award costs to the RSPCA, without which this case could not have gone ahead, and which took over the care of these two unfortunate dogs? How can the magistrate not have banned the offender from owning more dogs, at least for the foreseeable future? Why did the Director of Public Prosecutions in the ACT decide that due process has been followed in this case, and that they are unable to appeal the case on the grounds of a manifestly inadequate sentence?

If the law allows such a tiny fine for such neglect and abuse, then the law is indeed an ass.

Anna Marsden, Murrumbateman, NSW

Yet again the RSPCA is totally let down by another pathetic decision by an ACT Magistrate. The fine dished out to this woman was laughable, and to add insult to injury the RSPCA had to pay its own costs of $1900.

And even worse, this woman could have left the courts and gone straight to a pet shop to purchase another dog.

I am so sick of these gutless decisions by ACT courts. Magistrates should be made to spend a day or two at the RSPCA.

Sue Mcleod, Watson

The kangaroo killing program has ended and, despite the huge and uncalled for expenditure on security, secrecy, shooters, consultancies and misinformation, we have been able to witness first hand its extreme violence. At no cost to ACT residents we are also dealing with the acute psychological distress of those few infants that survived the carnage and were rescued and brought into care. Given the availability of well-known non-lethal kangaroo management methods and the lack of wildlife corridors, it's time for ACT residents to reflect on whether the moral direction provided by ministers Rattenbury, Corbell and Barr is really what they are prepared to rely on.

Professor Steve Garlick, Bungendore, NSW

There's a blockheaded stubbornness in politics these days on both sides and it will do no one any good. Just read a daily paper for proof. From just two pages of last Tuesday's CT: Andrew Barr unrelenting on the little-loved tram (p2); ACT Labor defending its misfiring drug-driving laws (p3); evidence on carbon levels decries Abbott's slogans and actions on climate (p2).

As an example, there's a very real possibility that Liberals will win the next ACT election and cancel the tram. This would be the worst conceivable future for public transport in Canberra. Ultimately the parties and the public lose and democracy is devalued. We need intellectual honesty, respect for conventions, honest conversation, shared decision making, good will and more but I fear money and power and short term wins out.

Eric Pozza, Red Hill

Michael de Percy ("Uber flagfall could be steep", Times2, July 9, p1) says un-priced externalities should scupper Uber here in the ACT.

His alleged costs to society? Uber receives personal info. Big deal. Who doesn't these days. Hate it? Drive or bus.

Try booking Elite to come. They often don't. Catching a flight? Pay that other mob an extra $10.

Uber drivers mightn't make enough money/face business costs? Bet tradesmen/shopkeepers/etc would love governments providing them with such guarantees. Uber-drivers who don't cover costs will stop driving; handing extra work to those remaining. And so, through the miracle of the marketplace, equilibrium is reached whereby marginal drivers earn enough to keep them in the game.

Safety? Require annual rego inspections. Casual relief drivers well-trained now? Use SatNav.

These aren't externalities. They're in the price.

Whereas the current price of taxi-plates precisely represents the cost to consumers of (yesteryear's) cynical monopoly-under-supply of cabs.

Veronica Giles, Chifley

Just when I think I've seen and heard it all, comes a story from the West. WA Police Minister Liza Harvey took a swipe at the charity sector for not pulling their weight in relation to homelessness. This was in response to criticism of the Department of Culture and Arts for installing a motion sensor sprinkler system in a stairwell at the King Street Arts Centre that regularly provided a safe haven for the homeless.

Charity spokespeople retorted that homelessness services accommodation is at full capacity each night. Bad enough to be homeless, but to have you and all your worldly belongings drenched is beyond contempt.

Ann Darbyshire, Gunning, NSW

Science isn't enough for the Abbott government. Neither is world opinion, nor even the recent people versus the Dutch government verdict. Things appeared to be looking up last week when it was recognised that LNG projects might be delayed or not go ahead at all because the world was looking for fossil-fuel alternatives, but almost immediately the government said yes to the latest coal mine, in the Liverpool Plains catchment.

The approval comes only days after the release of the government's agriculture white paper, which purports to value, protect and boost Australian farming and agriculture.

But approving coal-seam gas and coal projects makes the government complicit in the destruction of some of our most valuable farm and agricultural land. It threatens water catchments, human health, communities and biodiversity and the government's work is almost completed with its erosion of a thriving and jobs-creating renewables industry in a country with endless supplies of solar, wind and geothermal energy.

With business-owning governments and now, it would appear, the unions too, the only thing getting in the way are the activists. So, it's not a coincidence that Abbott and Co has initiated an inquiry into the tax-deductibility status of environment groups. But it may have its work cut out silencing the farmers and their communities who produce our food and fibre. With the Coalition's emission-reduction target way below the Dutch, it's time for Australians to take legal action against a government that is knowingly threatening our survival.

Catherine Moore, via Braidwood, NSW

Jessica Irvine's article "We can't pass the buck on innovation" (canberratimes.com.au, July7) rightly identifies the imperative for Australia to lift its game on innovation as a basic underpinning for our future competitiveness.

She is partly right in dismissing tokenism such as another government inquiry – that is unless such analysis helps highlight the real issues inhibiting innovation.

So far, Australia is relatively well-served by our ability to undertake research and development. But this advantage will be eroded unless commercialisation of innovation improves.

The point of failure in Australia is lack of support from private-sector investors in effectively commercialising novel developments. Compared with other advanced economies, this is a chronic problem.

Financiers and investors in Australia are notoriously risk-averse when considering whether to support company formations based on new technology. What used to be called "venture capital" is in pathetically short supply in Australia.

The main issue is simply the lack of competence of corporate Australia in knowing how to turn new developments into commercial successes.

Maybe there is some hope. As financiers look for new prospects in an increasingly post-resources economy – and if we can get past an obsession with real estate investment – then maybe the innovators will get the attention they deserve.

Keith Croker, Kambah

Bob Douglas (Letters, July8) should take a deep breath. There is no comparison with Australia's and the northern hemisphere's energy targets. Australia comprises just 0.003per cent of the world's population – or for every 1000 of the rest of the world there are just three Aussies.

Any changes we make to rid ourselves of fossil-fuel energy will make next to no difference to the world's climate-change problems. Slowing coal exports might help, but until other countries rid themselves of their fossil-fuel requirements, we would be plain dumb not to be a commercial provider.

Dave Jeffrey, Farrer

During NAIDOC week, positive aspects in the life of our country's first people were featured, along with the unfinished business that must be tackled if we are to achieve a fair Australia for all.

Among issues such as health, education, employment and land rights, the deplorably high rates of Indigenous imprisonment nationwide are of grave concern.

In the Northern Territory and Western Australia, the great majority of prisoners are Indigenous due to a lock-them-up approach and mandatory sentencing laws that effectively deny discretionary action by magistrates to hand down more appropriate sentences.

There must be an alternative to such harsh , costly practices, one that will ensure public safety, but also rehabilitate many offenders.

I wonder how many people elected to Parliament or involved in social-justice issues have read the 11 volumes of the 1991 report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody? In particular, have they read recommendation 92 of the national report overview, which clearly states that governments should legislate to enforce the principle that imprisonment should be a sanction of last resort.

Keith McEwan, Bonython

I concur with Waleed Aly regarding a diminishing level of genuine political debate within this nation ("Politics of persuasion lost", Times2, July10, p4). However, I also believe this is simply an inevitable consequence of the electorates being unwilling to take the time to both listen and learn, preferring soundbites to encapsulate an entire argument.

Former finance minister Lindsay Tanner suggests as much in his book Sideshow, accurately affirming that our culture has changed from one based on the spoken and written word, to one dominated by visual images. Television, therefore (including a political debate), thrives on simplicity and synopsis that is glib and emotive.

It is worth noting, by way of contrast, the seven town debates in 1858, between US Senate candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in Illinois, where Douglas would speak first, for one hour; Lincoln would take an hour and a half to reply; Douglas, a half hour to rebut Lincoln's reply. Can we honestly see MPs and audiences today being willing to be engaged in such oratory? Perhaps the adage that people get the government they deserve is tragically true.

Peter Waterhouse, Craigieburn, Vic

HAPPILY UNMARRIED

An answer to Cynthia Moloney's marriage riddle (Letters, July 7) could be that those who can, and don't want to, probably don't care about the morality of it, and those who cannot and want to, are perhaps hoping to be seen as moral.

Rosemary Lyne, Kingston

FASHION POLICE

Intimidating uniforms cannot stop with the Border Protection Force; refugees will be equally frightened by our police forces and, presumably our armed forces. Still, it will help the fashion industry.

Greg Cornwell, Yarralumla

SOME SENATE SENSE

Despite Bogey Musadlik opting for a 'simpler' Senate vote (Letters, July 9), I'm with Richard Denniss who argues for a threshhold of 2 or 4 per cent. Bring that in and you restore confidence in the system.

Jenny Goldie, Michelago, NSW

AN ISSUE WITH TISSUES

Many of us suffer runny noses in Canberra's chilly winter but is this an excuse for the discarded tissues littering our community pathways? If you need tissues, why not pop a plastic bag in your pocket and dispose of your rubbish when you get home?

John Rogers, Cook

MAFIA MAY BE TOO LATE

A turf war may be indicated by the report that "Agencies are now warning that criminals are targeting Australia's superannuation wealth" ("Organised crime wreaks harm on community", Times2, July 8, p5). The Mafia will find that it has a lot of competition.

Gary J. Wilson, MacGregor

WHAT ABOUT WALKERS?

So the ACT government spends $2.8 million on cycling paths ("Cycling safety concern despite investment", July 10, 5) and still the bikers want more. What a shame our government cannot manage to spend some money on fixing our footpaths and walking tracks. They are a disgrace and a definite hazard for those of us who like to walk to keep healthy, especially us older people.

Madeline Hollingsworth, Holt

SAVE NARRABUNDAH

I agree with Narrabundah Community Council chairman John Keeley about saving the historic and handsome Narrabundah duplexes ("Narrabundah locals fight to save historic duplexes", July 9, p2).

Things of yesteryear add interest to a suburb and draws attention to it. Narrabundah is close to the hearts of those early residents in the 1940s and '50s, I being one of them.

Please preserve and leave the "entrance to Narrabundah" as it is.

Evelyn Bean, Ainslie

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).