While I am not surprised at the Chamber of Commerce's position, I am glad it recognises the potential ill-effects on the government deficit and the consequences thereof, as well as it highlighting the fact there was no "comparative cost-benefit analysis at the start of the project".

The position of the Master Builders' Association is equally understandable, even though I have heard minister Simon Corbell say that employment generated would not be a factor in the business case. Of course, this is a big political seller, in spite of it being a fallacy. The same employment could be generated through alternative, more desirable infrastructure.

Readers should do their own sums on the cost of labour of 3500 people, at a conservative, average annual cost of $150,000 each – ie, $1.575 billion over three years. The kicker here is that all costs have to be met by Canberra taxpayers; it is not money flowing into Canberra – it will be pure cost paid for by borrowings. Mind you, I believe the employment figure of 3500 is highly suspect.

In respect of your consultation with community councils, I note with some disappointment that the interview with the representative of the Tuggeranong Community Council has not been mentioned. One council out of seven, openly for the project (and why not, when at least 80per cent of costs will be met by non-Gungahlin residents), two solidly against and four neutral (of which two have serious concerns), is hardly community endorsement of the project.

M.Silex, Erindale

Surely the companies providing air services to Devonport and Hobart, and the company which operates the Spirit of Tasmania, would cancel the services which no longer were viable. Unless, as can be extrapolated from Jack Waterford's piece (Sunday Canberra Times, March 15, p17), these services are subsidised by the federal government.

Ken McPhan, Spence

So the Skywhale is for sale (Sunday Canberra Times, March 15, p1.)

Buyers for it and its associated company may be hard to find, as businessmen and their accountants are usually wary of businesses that go up and down, accompanied by a lot of hot air.

Paul O'Connor, Hawker

There is something perverse about the Abbott government committing $150 million per annum to abolish self-government in Norfolk Island, while destroying remote Aboriginal communities – as they're a lifestyle choice.

A black-armband day for Australia, and Tony Abbott's distorted view of a "fair go" for all Australians.

Brett Sanderson, Norfolk Island

I applaud Graham Barrow's proposal (Letters, March 11) for a walking track with huts for overnight accommodation in the remote areas of Namadgi. There are many people who would use them. However, Rod Griffiths and his friends in the National Parks Association (Letters, March 19) need not worry; the ACT government won't fund it.

Keeping people out of wilderness areas is very much part of the environmentalists' creed, but the proposal need not damage the wilderness values Mr Griffiths is concerned about. It is all a matter of how it is done.

Many of the tracks are already there and new tracks could be constructed carefully to minimise the impact. The huts themselves could be located and constructed so as to be almost impossible to see, unless you are very close to them, as has been done on the Overland Track in Tasmania.

Stan Marks, Hawker

There is a very reassuring reason why approval of new drugs is not as fast in Australia as in some countries ... they are no better than existing drugs, and much more expensive.

The article "Our access to new medicines lagging" (Canberra Times, March 20, p6) gives only the drug company perspective. A report this week from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee shows that the informed consumer perspective is very different. To quote from it, new cancer drugs were "not often dramatically more effective than older drugs, [but] routinely dramatically more highly priced".

The real news in this case is not that drug companies can give a dozen reasons why we should approve their products more quickly, but that PBAC has spoken out about pharmaceutical companies misleading the public. This is a most unusual step.

PBAC has said the information circulating about these drugs is misleading. This is a serious accusation. Is false information being provided deliberately? Aren't new drugs tested to show they are better that existing drugs? Aren't these trials replicated by independent researchers? Why are prices so much higher?

Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is a group of experts on pharmaceutical products and practices. It is a courageous step on their part to speak out on this.

J.J.Heywood, Spence

With the ongoing and increasing violence against women, it was timely for Rebecca Vassarotti (Canberra Times, March 20, p5) to remind us that the ground-breaking and widely acclaimed 2010 All-Government National Action Plan to reduce Violence against Women and Children has not been implemented.

Its recommendations have been neglected. Why should governments expect to be accepted by the electorate as women keep dying from neglect?

Significantly, the report found primary prevention works. We urgently need programs in support services, schools and the community that bring males and females, adults and children together to openly discuss and hopefully come to understand the underlying reasons for this blight on society.

Women and men frequently respond very differently to the stresses of living and helping them to understand and respect one another's human rights is basic.

In the meantime, rather than simply concentrating on safe havens for women and children, a means should be found to electronically track men subject to an AVO, with 24-hour monitoring so that it is the perpetrator who relocates and not the victims.

Glenda Naughten, Farrer

In the Israeli/Palestinian situation, both sides appear to engage, routinely, in reprisal killings.

During World War II there were numerous instances where reprisal killings were carried out, not only against people not known to have engaged in belligerent activities, but also against those known to have not engaged in such actions.

Subsequently, the International Court of Justice ruled that reprisal killings are crimes against humanity. Why, then, are those regimes that continue the practice, not brought to account?

F.Lamb, Lyons

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).