Does that mean that in "growing up" we should ignore the positions of responsibility that the two principal players are in, and the fact that the salaries, perks and allowances that those players receive are provided from the public purse?

Does it mean ignoring the huge cost involved in shuffling a "social media adviser" between ministerial positions possibly created to avoid embarrassing the Deputy Prime Minister of this country?

Does it mean ignoring any sort of accountability these people might have to their employers – the taxpayers of this country? And does it mean overlooking arrangements which are outside their terms of employment, like provision of accommodation by sponsors and relationships with powerful business people?

To recognise that every human has weaknesses is one thing, but to suggest that the actions of people in positions of power should be protected from scrutiny by "grown-ups" is taking "privacy" too far.

My preference is to ignore James' advice , remain unsophisticated, and continue to grow old.

Brian Smith, Conder

Under PM Malcolm Turnbull's new standards, where no Minister should "have sexual relations" with staff, ex American president Bill Clinton would be exempt if his alleged indiscretion with intern Monica Lewinsky were to occur as a local MP in this country.

Clinton's declaration to the world was : "I did not have sexual relations with this woman!"

Prime Minister, good luck proselytising your fresh idiom to that stalwart of family values, President Trump, in your impending USA visit.

You might ask him how one can prove when such indiscretions take place if it happens clandestinely.

Meanwhile, the government leader in the Upper House, Senator Mathias Cormann, will keep Australia on a steady course in your absence while the National Party licks its wounds.

Greg Simmons, Lyons

Re Chris Dutton's article "The confessions of an indoor cricket Mankad" (canberratimes.com.au, February 15) regarding his level of guilt or lack of for executing a mankad on an opponent, I think general consensus is clear.

In any form of outdoor cricket, it's a poor poor act and should be frowned upon at all levels and strongly discouraged at junior level and anyone undertaking such action should be shunned, nay exiled from the cricketing community.

Indoor cricket however is a totally different beast, given the ball is always live, keeping batsmen honest via a mankad or the old fake ball trick is part and parcel of the game and though not necessarily encouraged is a legitimate play at any point in the game, just like stealing a run by pretending to have a chat with your batting partner. Carry on.

Mike Hancott, Kambah

I am puzzled by some commentators who insist parliamentary representatives should be barred from entitlement to citizenship in any other country.

Where will this end? Should all Australians who, perchance, are eligible to be citizens of other countries also be prohibited from voting?

Surely when electors choose Jill or Jack to be their spokesperson and to represent them in our Parliament, the wishes of electors and current laws against discrimination should prevail.

Like Australia, laws in other countries govern who can be recognised as eligible for citizenship. Renouncing such citizenship may be pointless. Rights can probably be reinstated if renouncers change their minds or claim renunciation was made under mitigating circumstances.

The Law of Return generally prioritises Jews, their spouses, their children and their grandchildren for entry and citizenship in Israel. Does this command more of our elected representatives to be referred to the High Court?

It is absurd, unworthy and insulting to insinuate that Australians recognised by citizenship laws in other countries may be untrustworthy or disloyal. Our Parliament can only benefit from the presence of members with international, rather than suburban, perspectives.

I do hope your paper, with support from other readers, will press for Parliament to overcome its lethargy and take overdue steps to adjust our neglected Constitution. We need laws to foster, not hinder, an innovative, multicultural, broadminded nation conscious of our neighbourhood and global citizenship.

Don Burns, Mawson

I disagree with the thoughts on solar farms versus rooftops by John L Smith. (Letters, February 15).

Both solar farms and rooftop panels are acceptable. By having roof top panels we are generating our own power and saving a considerable sum of money every quarter.

Last week we received our quarterly bill, was which was zero.

The extra electricity went back into the grid and we were paid a small sum of money as credit towards our next quarterly bill.

If we are buying power from solar farms it will cost much more than we are paying by having our own panels.

The problem of trees surrounding our home has no impact on the production of electricity.

We have many large trees providing shade from the western sun yet room for panels on the western side and also the north east. Any experienced installers of panels know exactly how to place the panels for maximum production.

Solar farms and roof top panels work well together.

Solar farms are supplying power to homes who cannot afford panels. Solar panels are also installed on large businesses such as bakeries.

This makes for a considerable saving for businesses needing a large volume of power to succeed.

Robyn Lewis, Raglan, NSW

Politicians, private health insurance, energy costs and banks all seem to be leading the way in the unpopularity stakes!

Will any of these regain my trust and support?

Politicians need to lead by example. Private health insurance needs to close the gap. Energy costs need to come down. As for banks, they need a Royal Commission and there is one. Light at the end of the tunnel maybe.

Janet Reynolds, Greenleigh

I am constantly startled by the new $A10 note, surely the most beautiful banknote in the world.

Philip Pocock, Canberra

Andrew Barr seems to be increasingly out of touch with the needs and preferences of Canberrans like me and maybe many others.

It's not that I'm a stick-in-the-mud opposed to high rises – it's just that I find so much of what's on offer to be unsuitable. I've lived in high-rise buildings in Japan, the UAE, Singapore and Washington DC. All of those experiences were more than satisfactory.

The problems I find with much of the Canberra stock is that it is poorly constructed, overpriced, lacking in space apart from the main living area and master bedroom (if in fact they're more than a bedsit or one-bedroom unit), noisy, lacking in access to community amenities sought by apartment dwellers, and poorly served by rapid public transport — and no, the light rail won't solve this.

When I returned to Canberra four years ago I seriously looked into knocking down my house and redeveloping my large RZ2 block but government red tape and high fees made that impractical.

So now my wife and I are rattling around in a five-bedroom place that's way bigger than we need and would be better suited to a young growing family.

Our next step is to sell up and hit the road as grey nomads. We'll be keeping a Canberra electoral roll address so that for the first time ever we can vote for someone other than a Labor candidate in the local elections.

Keith Hill, Kaleen

Mr Barr in his arrogant and ageist dismissal of concerns about building height "nostalgia among a certain generation of Canberrans ...small town, backwards 1940s mindset" displays his superficial understanding of planning, transport and housing issues.

His attitude of "higher the building the better" ignores issues that need to be considered in determining building height including overshadowing, scale, energy and water use, traffic, parking and street impact.

His vision of a high-density future Canberra is predicated on the majority of the population wanting to live in high-rise apartments in accessible areas. While this is the lifestyle choice of some, predominantly singles and couples without children, no evidence is presented that this is the dominant choice of Canberrans.

Indeed work undertaken for the government by Winton (2015) indicates a strong preference by those surveyed for detached dwellings.

While demand for higher density housing is increasing, it is unclear how much is a result of lifestyle changes and how much is a response to reduced housing affordability and increased congestion caused by government ineptitude.

The government's superficial understanding of urban issues is also indicated by its random land purchases (reflecting an absence of a development strategy for the city) and its obsession with the monumentally expensive light rail project.

The transport task could be adequately met by a busway on which electric buses, with progressively increased passenger capacity would operate.

Funds saved could be used to improve public transport services and to fund the construction of community housing.

Mike Quirk, Garran

Andrew Barr describes critics of very tall buildings as having a "small town, backwards, 1940s' mindset" ("Barr's lofty ambitions", February 15, p1).

I'm pretty sure planners here then were aware of say, the Empire State Building and similar others, which were completed in the 1930s.

Very tall structures can be clearly all right in their place – such as boom-town commercial centres.

Chief Minister and Treasurer Barr is obviously an unsophisticated fan of them, and seems to be caving in to developer pressure for such edifices in Civic (including all of Northbourne Avenue), and Woden.

Actually, very tall grouped residential towers, provided they don't overshadow residential areas, work best on the highest ground in a particular locality, because their visual presence is enhanced, and they can't block views there. That possibly counterintuitive concept could see very tall residential towers along the ridges of Belconnen and Tuggeranong Town Centres, not, as at present, down at the lowest points, where they are out of scale, and are actually very intrusive in may ways. There's no such high ground in Civic/Northbourne, and in any case, for obvious symbolic reasons, the current limit, Parliament House's grass roof, will and should remain, for all uses. With no significantly elevated land in Woden, its former MLC tower should remain as a detached "marker" in a valley, a concept worthy of preservation, as an expression of a significant post-war "new town" urban design aesthetic, and nothing there should go anywhere near its height, regardless of use.

Jack Kershaw, Kambah

Your editorial "Stamp duty change has ended badly" (January 16, p20) is not an accurate characterisation of situation.

The manipulation of the land rate tax for unit owners vis-a-vis single dwellings was a deliberate and calibrated action.

There was nothing unintended about it.

The 2012 Tax System Review which recommended the phased replacement of stamp duty on residential property transfers via an increase in the territory's land tax did not propose a separate valuation rating system for units.

It did, however, propose that the land valuation component of the tax be made more progressive as persons with small land blocks were paying proportionately more tax than persons on larger blocks.

The equity justification for the new valuation rating of units as set out in the 2016-17 budget is spurious.

First it justifies the change on the basis of high capital values of units when the tax is levied on the unimproved land value.

Second, any study using the appropriate benchmark – tax paid per square meter of land – would demonstrate that unit owners are paying more tax per square metre of land than their neighbours in free standing dwellings.

Tax paid per square metre of land was the benchmark used in the 2012 Tax System Review.

Unfortunately this mess, in part, has occurred because the Legislative Assembly's review of the tax changes in the 2016-17 budget was flawed.

Moreover, the then Opposition failed to understand the detail of the proposed changes to the rating system and did not make a sensible comment on it.

Mike Buckley, Barton

Mr Barr's waspish rant ("Barr's Lofty Ambitions", February 15, p1) can be summed up in three short points:

It's ageist, anti-community and ill informed.

Ann Parkinson, Curtin

BEST TO KEEP MUM

While I'm not one to quote the Bible at the drop of an Akubra I couldn't help thinking of Proverbs, Chapter 17, verse 28 when Barnaby Joyce made his ill-considered response to Malcolm Turnbull on Friday morning.

It runs, in the King James version: "Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding". Words to live by Barnaby.

M. Moore, Bonython

WHO IS THE GATEKEEPER?

So who will be holding the keys to Turnbull's chastity belts?

Rick Smyth, Narrabundah

THINGS LOOKING SERIOUS

It is so reassuring to know that Mathias Cormann is going to be our acting PM next week. This is the person who said the reshuffling of staff was all above board in the Barnaby Joyce fiasco.

All I can say is that we are scraping the bottom of the barrel when trying to find anyone capable of leading this country.

Barbara Mecham, Melba

CUT JOYCE SOME SLACK

Like most I find it hard to condemn most who get caught with their figurative pants down.

One of my friends explained gently to me that what is pretty is to a man, rich and/or powerful is to a girl.

Most of us live in glass houses which means that we should be reluctant to throw stones.

Give Barnaby a break.

He is, in all probability, going through the fragile 50s.

Howard Carew, Isaacs

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).