If fairness is the issue, how come the changes did not apply to persons receiving military or defence defined benefits payments?

Does the minister understand the public sector defined benefit schemes of the past? Why was it that former treasurer Costello introduced a scheme in which defined benefits income was discounted for age pension income assessment purposes? It was because most public servants made their compulsory defined benefits contributions from their after-tax salary, that is, they effectively paid tax at the marginal rate on their contributions.

Unlike the current situation, there were no concessions, tax deductions or reduced tax rates for these super contributions. Defined benefits recipients did not have an advantage over others as claimed by the minister. Allowing them to access a part age pension was a recompense for past tax treatment of their superannuation contributions. The government should study the history of schemes before abolishing them.

Ross Morgan, Laurieton, NSW

The booting of Phil Pellatt and his wife off the age pension ("If we were renting, I don't know how we'd survive", May 26, p1), reinforces that there is no "milk of human kindness" pulsating through the veins of the government or its agencies in dealing with pensioners or loyal servants.

In my case with an income of just over a third of the $120,000, my chat with Centrelink in 2014 around the time of my retirement at the age of 72 with nearly 50 years of service with the Australian government resulted in me being informed that I had no entitlement to either a part age pension or pension bonus scheme entitlement. I had diligently provided Centrelink progressively with my work records as a full-time public servant over the five-year period between my 65th and 70th birthdays to meet Centrelink requirements.

To rub salt into the wound, I was denied the favourable tax treatment to my redundancy payment that was provided to my peers since I was over 65. ATO does not accept a person over 65 can be made redundant!

My investigation of anti-discrimination legislation revealed that ATO is not subject to this legislation. Earlier this year I was alerted through the coverage of the 10 per cent issue in your papers to the fact that I had been misled by Centrelink. Not surprisingly, Centrelink was in denial when I approached them.

Name and address withheld by request

Church freedoms

There is a curious link between two recent stories in The Canberra Times. "Shorten avoids church stoush" (May 25, p4) informs us that opposition leader Bill Shorten has promised the churches that in government he will maintain exemptions for religious organisations from anti-discrimination laws. The major religious bodies of Australia have closely guarded their freedom to run their affairs according to their faith. Mr Shorten has asserted that Labor, unlike the Greens, is not interested in telling religions how to run their faith-based organisations.

In the article "Thomas Becket relic returns to England" (May 25, p8), we recall that Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, was murdered by agents of King Henry II in 1170 because he denied the absolute right of the king to rule without any restraint. Magna Carta, signed by an unwilling king in 1215, stood for the same principle.

In the 21st century we do not have an absolute monarch, but some would like to see a politically correct secular society given the same absolute authority over the lives of all, and religious traditions in our society reduced to purely private opinions. Such a move would be an attack on our freedoms, and should be resisted.

Robert Willson, Deakin

Sorry saga

Ian Jannaway (Letters, May 26) is on the wrong side of history (as well as logic) in railing against the Victorian Premier's apology to those convicted of the "crime" of homosexuality in the past. He erroneously compares the 19th century crimes of sheep stealing and bicycle speeding with the then crime of homosexuality and asks if similar apologies will be made to thieves and speedsters.

Stealing and speeding are still against the law, and it is most unlikely that they will ever be decriminalised, as homosexuality rightly was. As for Mr Jannaway's claims of revisionist history "pandering to minority groups", while gays and lesbians are a minority in society, I would argue (based on public support for marriage equality) that at the very least 70 per cent of the population would agree that decriminalising the "victimless crime" of homosexuality was, albeit late, the right and just thing to do.

Ross Pulbrook, Wyong, NSW

Renewable energy

Thanks to Professor Andrew Blakers ("How Australia can eliminate coal-fired electricity by 2030", Times2, May 25, p5), I now have a much better understanding of renewable energy.

South Australia is connected to Victoria with cables of limited capacity (presumably ones of unlimited capacity would be too expensive). Rapid improvements allow gigawatts of power to be transmitted over many thousands of kilometres at modest cost. Hydro and gas generators, operating for only a small fraction of the year, can fill gaps in supply. Only a few hours of storage is needed to stabilise a grid, and this can be supplied by a few dozen off-river PHES sites. PV, wind, HVDC and PHES are energy solutions that allow rapid and deep greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Professor Blakers didn't say how much more electricity would cost under the new regime, but I suppose it would be quite a bit more.

Mike Dallwitz, Giralang

What a fine mess

What is wrong with the ACT government? All these unpaid monies for municipal offences, unpaid fines from diplomatic mission staff for traffic and related offences. Why aren't these issues being addressed and these monies being collected? It is high time this government grew up and started doing what it is supposed to do.

Barb Mitchell, Ngunnawal

Since the English civil wars, nearly 400 years of Westminster system constitutional evolution has entrenched the removal of the gun from our politics.

Our defence force is institutionally and professionally non-partisan in the execution of its duties. But this non-partisan convention is also reciprocal across civil society.

Recent examples, from both sides of politics, where election billboards and posters feature candidates wearing their former Australian Defence Force uniform, unequivocally contravene the convention ("APS warned to take care with likes on Facebook", May 27, p3).

Such highly visible advertising, without any wider context or indeed other knowledge of the candidate, is particularly liable to be easily misconstrued as the ADF somehow endorsing that candidate or their political stance.

If the non-partisanship convention continues to be abused, the wearing of ADF uniform in all forms of election material will need to be regulated by the Electoral Act – as occurs with other aspects of misleading electoral advertising.

If political parties can no longer be trusted to respect the need for ADF political neutrality by reciprocating the non-partisanship convention, statutory prohibition becomes the only solution.

Neil James, executive director, Australia Defence Association

Degree of discomfort

I write whilst sitting in the Centenary Cafe at the Canberra Hospital this morning mopping my brow, as the temperature is so high that even in short sleeves I am far too hot.

If the ACT Health Directorate really wants to keep its budget in the black, lowering the temperature a degree or two at the hospital would help to reduce costs. In addition, a slightly cooler environment must surely be less conducive to the breeding of germs and other assorted bugs!

Gay von Ess, Aranda

The mantra "jobs and growth" has a very hollow ring when we look back at the term of the Abbott/Turnbull government!

It was Joe Hockey who removed the subsidy to the car manufacturing industry which saw Holden, Ford and Toyota leave Australia's shores; then there is the flow-on effect to all the parts manufacturers. The most rudimentary research would have demonstrated that the government of every other car manufacturing country in the developed world is paying a subsidy for those major manufacturers to stay.

So, how many jobs were lost in the car manufacturing industry in Australia? I understand that Holden, Ford and Toyota directly employed 8000 workers. Further, the parts and other related industries employed five times as many people. This means that in the car industry alone, Australia has lost 40,000 jobs. Then there are all the other manufacturing industries that have gone offshore. How many jobs have been lost from theseindustries?

So, Mr Turnbull, when talking about "jobs and growth" are you going to include the jobs that your government so effectively and efficiently killed in Australia? I am sure the job numbers will still be in negative figures for many more elections to come.

Jane Timbrell, Reid

Carbon fee a winner

Ian Dunlop ("Citizens awake – we are being taken for fools", Times2, May 25, p5) makes a good case for a national unity government to bring a determined and united effort to address the mounting threat of climate change. And the Grattan Institute has suggested a strategic way for Liberal and Labor to find some common ground in a form of carbon pricing that borrows from both their policy platforms. We applaud the bipartisan appeal in both. And we continue to hold out that the simplest, fairest and most effective policy would be the introduction of a Carbon Fee and Dividend. A steadily rising fee is levied on the carbon content of fossil fuels at the point where they enter the economy and all the revenue is returned evenly to all households as a regular dividend.

This would give clear incentives to investors, industry and the whole society to rapidly transition away from carbon and invest in a zero-carbon society. A bipartisan approach would be best, but this policy could be introduced by one party and would be popular with the electorate!

Rod Mitchell, national coordinator, Citizens' Climate Lobby (Australia)

The Canada Solution

One wonders if the Turnbull government really wants the refugee issue to go away. Surely the highly paid and intelligent departmental and ministerial advisers would have jumped on the opportunity to move the Manus Island and Nauru asylum seekers when the Syrian refugee problem was addressed by the developed countries a little whileback.

At that meeting Australia agreed to take 12,000 refugees and everybody clapped and patted each other on the back (we have I think adopted 12 families so far). Canada took 27,000 refugees (most are there already).

Wouldn't it have been an option to say to Canada: "Look we have a small problem with about 1000 asylum seekers/boat people which we currently have offshore in Nauru and Manus Island. We cannot accept them in Australia for domestic political reasons and they are costing us a motza.

"How about if we take 1000 of your 27,000 Syrian refugees and you take our 1000 asylum seekers. It would really help us out with the UN and take away some of the opposition to our border protection policies. We could probably throw a bit of transition money to assist theprocess".

A wasted opportunity!

Phil Tuckerman, Duffy

Origins of IED

In response to Brian Brocklebank's query (Letters, May 26) regarding bombs and improvised explosive devices, the first IED was probably made in China when a piece of bamboo was filled with gunpowder and used to blow up a neighbour'sshed!

The first bomb? Probably when the maker of the first IED discovered he could make money selling similar devices to his neighbours!

On a more serious note, the origins of the term IED may well date back to the Vietnam War, although my first recollection of the use of the term in official reports was around the time of the First Gulf War. Prior to that, such devices were generally referred to as "boobytraps".

Penny Bowen, Chisholm

My understanding, which is intuitive rather than fully informed, is that a bomb is professionally manufactured for military purposes.

An improvised explosive device is made of locally available materials such as a length of pipe, explosives and shrapnel such as nails. Both can be quite lethal and have similar effects, relative to size. I am sure that some other readers can be more precise. When the term originated, I have no idea.

E. Smith, Page

To kill or not to kill

Professor Amin Saikal is probably right about the targeted US drone killing (an assassination) of the Afghanistan Taliban leader Mullah Mansour inside Pakistan ( "Death won't change much", Times2, May 25 p1). But the moral and ethical justification for assassinating leaders of any persuasion is very questionable.

Perhaps we can justify assassinating "terrorist group" leaders like Osama Bin Laden. But who defines a terrorist group? This is a very slippery slope with tit-for-tat responses likely. Where does it end?

Was Mullah Mansour the leader in a civil war where his side is opposing the US installed and supported government, or was he a terrorist group leader ? If the former, then we can justify assassinating opposition leaders in any country because we support the present government. Should the Americans have assassinated Ho Chi Minh in the Vietnam War?

It's not a big step to then assassinate leaders of countries where we don't support the present government. Should the South Koreans assassinate the North's leader Kim Jong-un?

I think we need to let the philosophers loose on this issue.

Peter White, Flynn

LET DFO GO TO WALL

If the DFO in Fyshwick is failing, why prop it up by permitting a supermarket in a zone which does not allow supermarkets ("Supermarket plan in bid to save Outlet Centre at Fyshwick from collapse", May 27, p3)?

Outlet failing to attract tenants? Then it is the wrong business. So let it fail and allow another commercial enterprise relevant to Fyshwick take over site.

Marguerite Castello, Griffith

POLICIES FAILING US

When will the politicians stop treating electors like fools who can be bribed with a litany of localised pork-barrel promises, almost all of doubtful merit? Where are the policies that are clearly in the national, rather than sectional, interest?

Where is the leadership we so badly need to identify sustainable pathways to a better, more equitable, future in a globalised world?

Keith Croker, Kambah

BLOOMS MEAN BUSINESS

It saddens me that the Canberra CBD group would abandon an investment that has successfully made the city more attractive and pleasant to visit and work in ("Lights, not hanging flowers, in the city", May 24, p3). I can only hope that they reconsider the wide-reaching emotional and social benefits the flowers have brought to the area and, therefore, to the businesses they represent.

Emily Batchelor, Yanchep, WA

GIVE OTHERS VOICE

Is Matthew Raggatt going to follow up his story "PM and wife lead way in very Canberra list of the capital's power couples" (May 22, pp4-5) with a similar set of stories about Canberra's most powerless couples? We eagerly await a display of equality of consideration.

Dan Barton, Cook

WATER POLLUTION PLEA

Great news that the ACT government is allocating millions of dollars to improving water quality in lakes and rivers. I hope they will spend some of that money to fully research the massive water pollution resulting from government-funded willow destruction programs.

Peter Marshall, Braidwood, NSW

LUCKY TO BE HERE

After an unexpected medical concern while at the Canberra Theatre last week, I was transferred to Calvary Hospital by ambulance. My treatment by everyone was professional, caring and immediate. We hear so much negativity in our world and the occasional criticism of our services. I want to thank the Canberra Theatre, ACT Ambulance and Calvary Hospital.

We are the lucky country.

Barbara Lemmey, Page

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).