Tony Falla, Ngunnawal

The government's postal plebiscite on same sex marriage is technically flawed, and its results will have less reliability than a public opinion poll. The post office will have little idea who filled out a form or if a paper form is genuine or was mass produced by a commercial printing press.

We would get a better result if it were carried out electronically and made available on mobile phones and desktop computers. It will cost less than a dollar to verify a voter electronically and should cost less than ten million to set up a system and run the poll. If we trust the operator we can be assured the votes will still be secret.

Kevin Cox, Ngunnawal

There are many arguments against the ABS carrying out a voluntary, postal plebiscite on marriage equality.

Like many others, I am deeply concerned with the impact on LGBTI people and their families (especially children) of a public debate about what should be a basic human right.

Like former chief statistician Bill McLennan, I am concerned with the impact it might have on the reputation of the ABS, and with the legality of the exercise.

In addition, I am concerned with the likely disenfranchisement of younger people, who, according to opinion research, are much more likely to support marriage equality than older people.

The government plans the plebiscite mail-out for September 12. That gives little if any time for the electoral commission to update its address records and share them with the ABS, and those who changed address are unlikely to have updated since the last federal election, more than a year ago.

Younger people are much more likely to change addresses than older people. At the time of the 2011 ABS census, 36 per cent of Australians aged 20-34 were living at a different address one year previously, compared with only 13 per cent of those aged 50 and over.

How will people overseas vote in this plebiscite? With difficulty, at best.

Again, younger people will be disproportionally disenfranchised. In 2015-2016, 36 per cent of all overseas departures of at least one year by Australian residents were by 25 to 34 year olds, while 55 to 64 year olds were just 9 per cent of all such departures (Department of Immigration and Border Control data).

As Malcolm Turnbull himself said in 1997 (in the republican debate), "The voluntary postal voting method ... is likely to ensure that ... large sections of the community will be disfranchised".

Barbara Preston, O'Connor

The article "All tied up in knots over same-sex marriage ..." by George Williams (August 7, p16) is false propaganda.

Williams began by asserting "community support in favour of same-sex marriage" (but later opined "if the ballot is close"). There is both support and objection.

There have been no properly conducted polls; that is why a plebiscite is necessary.

He implied inequality. What inequality? Perhaps thousands of Australian homosexual couples cohabit in recognised relationships. Marriage redefinition advocates seem unable to explain their imagined inequality.

He falsely complained that the only explicable reason for a plebiscite "is to frustrate the move to same-sex marriage".

Baloney! The reason is to properly determine what support exists for change.

He claimed that since 2013 many nations have recognised same-sex marriage; he named nine — but not the 200 or so which didn't. Australia should make up its own mind — not blindly follow an extremely small minority of other nations. How was marriage redefined? In Ireland only 36 per cent of people voted for change. In the US the Democrats avoided plebiscites by resorting to a dodgy legal case decided 5-4 on a mainly political basis; the resultant resentment over this unethical behaviour probably lost the Democrats the Presidential election. Slovenia voted against change. Williams falsely claimed that if a postal vote was close, the resulting debate could be explosive.

However, an explosion of anger is likely if change is made without a plebiscite. I leave it to readers to decide whether Williams was dishonest.

Bob Salmond, Melba

It looks as though the hypocrisy of the Coalition conservatives knows no bounds.

How can they countenance a voluntary postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage when it was expressly not the policy taken to the last election and, in their eyes, approved by voters?

David Jenkins, Casey

So, once again the Conservative Party (oops, sorry, the Liberal Party) misses an opportunity to lead, or to even to walk alongside the majority, on a social issue.

Add this failure on marriage equality to the failure to apologise to the stolen generation, to the failure to take effective action on climate change, to the failure to take any sort of moral stance on asylum seekers. And the list goes on.

Peter Dark, Queanbeyan

What on earth will Andrew Barr find to do with the $200,000 he saved by refusing an ex-gratia payment to Jack Hartigan and his parents? The psychological trauma and physical injuries from Jack's mauling by dangerous dogs kept on Housing Commission property will last a lifetime. What is the point of having a "vibrant" city if we cannot even look after an injured child? Barr would have to be the most out of touch chief minister the ACT has endured if he cannot see the shame in his decision.

K.L.Calvert, Downer

Pay punitive damages Justice demands that punitive damages be included in sentencing alternatives available under criminal law.

The justice sought unsuccessfully by Jack Hartigan's parents, an ex-gratia payment from our town council to cover the extensive surgery to repair his face after he was mauled by a dog, is a case in point.

Having had my face reconstructed after being glassed, I know that patient action against even an impecunious assailant is the way to go. It took about three years for the search agent employed by my solicitor, employed by Legal Aid, to find my assailant.

I refused to pay my hospital bill as the matter was before the law. Eventually, my assailant paid the bill and damages were paid off to me over more than a decade.

One problem is that under ACT law damages cannot be sought if criminal charges have been laid.

One possible analysis is that the distinction between criminal and civil actions is counter-productive, that the police pass too many actions which should be civil actions to the public prosecutor.

That would be an invitation to anarchy unless all such actions were supported by some variation of Legal Aid. Few victims could afford such action, so few deterrent sentences could be delivered.

Punitive damages under criminal law would be a huge saving on incarceration.

Gary J.Wilson, Macgregor

I totally agree with Mark Urquhart (Letters, August8) concerning the lack of care for Jack Hartigan. The most eye-opening result of this government's hard-hearted decision was the Greens joining Labor in denying the family compensation.

Assuming this terrible accident doesn't happen on a regular basis (where a child's face is terribly savaged), I fail to see why this government couldn't make an ex-gratia payment for special compensation (if necessary to further change the funding guidelines) – especially when the territory's funds are channelled into so many non-vital projects.

Show some compassion.

Robyn Willimott, Aranda

Trevor Lipscombe wants to name the roundabout in front of the war memorial after Sir John Monash (Letters, August7). Mr Lipscombe is deluded if he thinks either that Monash was "the main architect of Allied victory" or that he has been denied his due elsewhere. Monash already has a university, a parkway and a suburb named after him, is on the $100 note, and has more biographies than any other Australian soldier, not to mention a $100million interpretative centre in France. Enough! Why not rename the roundabout in memory of the 15,000-odd Diggers who died under Monash's supposedly war-winning command in 1918?

Prof Peter Stanley, Honest History/UNSW Canberra, Dickson

I'm not doubting Lieutenant- General John Monash's merits as a general, as outlined by Trevor Lipscombe, but can we please be spared another war memorial being squeezed into our city, which is already replete with them. Australia is spending around $600million in total on our WWI commemoration – far more than any other country, and this includes $100million on the Monash museum at Villers-Bretonneux. Enough is enough.

It would be a far more valuable contribution to the future of young Australians if we incorporated education on the many WWI-era voices who tried desperately to stop the madness of that industrialised bloodbath. Lipscombe states that General Monash's leadership saved thousands of lives. How many millions of lives could have been saved if the 1200 women from around the world who met in The Hague in April 1915 – forming the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (which continues still) and urging a peace settlement – had been heeded, instead of those who insisted that the war must go on? They, and many others, had credible plans that were never given a chance. The slaughter of mind-numbing numbers of young men continued.

We appear to have learnt nothing from WWI and are right now heading in the direction of even more global-scale wars. To paraphrase historian Henry Reynolds' observation in his book Unnecessary Wars, we are obsessed with focusing on how Australia fights wars, not why our forbears were subject to such brutality.

Dr Sue Wareham, ACT vice-president Medical Association for Prevention of War

Yesterday, I had a day procedure at the Canberra Hospital and wanted to congratulate the wonderful staff there. Starting with the reception staff, who were very friendly and helpful. Then the nurses, who were amazing, even bringing me a hot blanket as I was cold. The theatre staff were equally friendly and professional. How lucky are we to have such a wonderful hospital to care for us when we need it. They even rang today to check that I was OK.

Thank-you to all the staff that took such good care of me on Monday in the gastroenterology department.

Maureen McClean, Jerrabomberra

So, in return for the US pretending to consider taking 100or even zero refugees from Manus Island, Australia is committed to: taking an undisclosed number of the US' unwanted; unconditionally "being there, again and again" at Uncle Sam's beck and call; and to a sycophantic indebtedness. How is this a good deal forAustralia? Seems that in the "businessman-to-businessman" negotiation stakes, even after his rounds with Putin, Merkel, Abe and "France", Trump is more than a match for Turnbull.

Colin Low, Barton

UPGRADES A DOWNGRADE

The government wants to spend $40million on upgrades to IP Australia ("IP Australia HQ in $40m upgrade", August6, p5) while reducing university funding by $1.1billion ("Unis face $1.1b in cuts", August6, p1). If they keep up that sort of assault on education there won't be any need for IP Australia.

David Doepel, Chapman

BROKEN PROMISES

When it comes to a plebiscite, I have no idea why the government is too worried about breaching an election promise.

Can someone please remind MrTurnbull of how many Liberal leaders, including himself, breached an election promise.

Mokhles K.Sidden, South Strathfield NSW

CLOSER TO HOME

Alan Taylor (Letters, August8) bemoans the "silly old men in Canberra", i.e. the Federal Parliament. Sorry, Alan, your sexism aside, only four (two men and two women) are actually Canberrans.

The largest number are actually from NSW, so you should aim your sights closer to home.

Eric Hunter, Canberra

SAME-SEX MARRIAGES

Marriage is an intensely intimate and personal affair. That's why, according to the Coalition, all Australians should have their say on whether a particular couple's intimate and personal relationship is OK to be confirmed in marriage.

S.W.Davey, Torrens

SOMETHING TO CONSIDER

When the results of the proposed vote on same-sex marriage are debated in Parliament, will it be possible for our politicians to have a conscience vote or will they will they recall the need for party support at the next election?

C.J.Johnston, Duffy

NOTHING TO LOSE

Regarding "Senate votes down plebiscite, postal ballot to go ahead" (canberratimes.com.au, August9), it confounds my understanding that a government should expend boundless energy and money on an issue that affects no one except a segment of the community who want to marry and can't.

Our nation will not be diminished if we allow them.

Graham Wilson, Weston

TRY AND TRY AGAIN

Some suggestions for our dear strong leader. If the vote fails again in the Senate, put it one more time and you can have a double-dissolution trigger. Or, have an online vote run by the ABS.

What could possibly go wrong with either alternative?

Maria Greene, Curtin

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).