The irony is that we are reaping the consequences of promoting the role of warfare and all its paraphernalia in our national life. War and a weaponised economy have become the norm for us, and yet we are totally oblivious to the human costs for others. Thousands of civilians from Mosul are dead, and over a million displaced, as a result of fighting in which Australia took part, but for us it's just another ho-hum moment, sad, but let's move on.

And we wonder why we have enemies.

For those poised to reply that it's ridiculous to blame airport advertising for any real or alleged terrorist activities, let me state clearly that I agree. But anyone who cannot see links between the military-industrial complex we have created (in which advertising plays an important role), our perpetual state of fighting in other people's lands, and the desire of some to make us also suffer, is trying hard not to. Toss in our incapacity to say no to a US President itching for a fight and our future looks bleak unless we change direction.

Dr Sue Wareham, convener, No Airport Arms Ads, Cook

Many years ago, I overfilled my wheelie bin, only to find it sitting there with its still-gaping lid when I came home from work. Inspection revealed a tag saying collection was declined because I had too much protruding from the bin. Fair cop.

But that was then, and now things are obviously very different. Anything goes!

Why this concerns me is particularly in regard to the recycling bins that more than a few Canberrans are using as "mini skips", dumping everything from timber and cables to food and rugs. Sometimes the gross misuse is apparent, even from a distance; yet the truck drivers blithely take it anyway.

It would only take a few refusals with a conspicuous misuse tag and delinquent households would mend their ways. I still remember my reprimand.

Ross Kelly, Monash

In his letter on the republic issue (Letters, August 2) Barrie Smillie claims that, now, "at least we know what we've got." But then he evades explaining what that is.

Despite his demand to "lay off", as a republican, I feel obliged to rectify that omission. What we have got is still a colonial structure established in 1901 with a foreign head of state, constitutionally part of our Parliament and with stated constitutional power to disallow our laws.

That is what many Australians now realise, and may be able to vote on after the next election, with or without Mr Smillie's approval.

Bryan and Elizabeth Lobascher, Chifley

Does Adrian Jackson (Letters, August 3) expect to be taken seriously? He pillories Australian celebrities' support for a republic, yet purports mass Australian "love" for distant British celebrities and their children. He attacks the suitability of an American style native-born, executive presidential model, despite this not being proposed. He fallaciously claims that "we" (Australia?) had an empire, whereas most other European monarchies had not. In truth, "we" were colonies of a European empire, like the widespread colonies of the empires of several European monarchies (France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands and formerly Germany and Portugal). But unlike all of those other colonies we have misguidedly allowed our independence to remain fettered to and by the former imperial monarchy. There may be arguments against a republic. All are weak or ill founded. Mr Jackson's are among the weakest and most risible.

Mike Hutchinson, Reid

The battle over same-sex marriage has changed from being about the concept itself to one of two political leaders each trying to be seen as the person responsible for delivering change. Each should support the plebiscite while expressing his personal opinion that change is preferred.

Most Australians are not homophobic; consider the number of homosexuals elected or appointed to high office (Justice Kirby, Penny Wong, Andrew Barr, Alan Joyce). Remaining problems can be solved without changing the definition of "marriage".

Unfortunately, some homosexuals have divisively mounted a highly dishonest campaign demanding change that would upset millions. Ironically, they have thus been counterproductive to their underlying intent of further increasing acceptance of homosexuals.

If they believed their claims of 70+ per cent support for change, they would strongly support a plebiscite. Only an idiot could believe their claim that a plebiscite would be divisive (especially as it was they who initiated the issue). Their real reason for opposing a plebiscite is fear of failure because its associated arguments would overcome years of dishonest propaganda.

Only a plebiscite can demonstrate fairness and maintain harmony. Change initiated by plebiscite would be accepted by most; change initiated by a lopsided (Labor compulsory, Liberal conscience) parliamentary vote would be divisive and resented enormously. Those supporting parliamentary vote selfishly want change regardless of the cost. For harmony and integrity, Shorten should withdraw his politically motivated opposition to a plebiscite (thus enhancing his reputation). Turnbull should praise him for doing so.

Bob Salmond, Melba

We already know the Coalition's benighted same-sex marriage plebiscite is an expensive sham because the avowed marriage opponents have already signalled they plan to defy the will of the people in the event that the "yes" vote were to be successful. If plebiscites are suddenly all the rage, how about one on the Adani mine, coal-seam gas fracking and implementing a carbon price?

If the government has a lazy $150 million searmarked for this farce, there are far better uses it could be put to such as funding domestic violence prevention and shelters or low-cost housing for Australia's many thousands of homeless. But the charade is really all about the self-appointed moral guardians subjecting the populace to their views on decency.

David Jenkins, Casey

Peter Hannam ("Temp needs to be capped to save the reef", August 3, p4) makes some weird claims concerning the global temperature and the Great Barrier Reef.

In that article he complains that the GBR has had major bleaching over the last two years. It happened during the previous strong El Nino in 1997-98 as well and it recovered without our help at all. The same will most likely happen this time. Trying to frighten people by claiming that it is a result of anthropogenic climate change is par for the course for Peter in his inane articles.

He claims that the global temperature rising is the cause of the bleaching. According to the satellite temperature series (UAH), there has been no warming trend since 1997 so how can climate change be at fault? The ElNino, a natural occurrence, is more likely to blame, but that doesn't support the cause, does it?

It is interesting that Dr Finkel in an answer to a question in the Senate stated that if all of Australia's emissions ceased there would be no noticeable effect on the Australian or global climate!

Man's emissions accounts for approximately 3.5 per cent of the yearly CO2 flux anyway. Even the US EPA agrees with that. It has been in their documentation for years.

Why bother ruining our economy attempting to control the earth's temperature by reducing CO2 emissions? It is just virtue signalling by those who wish to strut the world stage, isn't it?

John McKerral, Batemans Bay, NSW

Scientists exist in a rarefied environment. They have difficulty communicating. Their language skills are limited.

Consider, "The report by a panel of 15 scientists also called for the urgent revision of the reef's plan to 2050 to account for 'inexorable global warming'." ("Temp needs to be capped to save reef", August 3, p4)

Quite apart from the faulty description by 15 scientists of an insentient reef having a plan, they demonstrated poor understanding of language to write of "inexorable" global warming.

It is irresponsible ignorance to risk public alarm by incorrect use of the word "inexorable". Everyone knows that global warming can be stopped, even reversed.

Inexorable means impossible to stop or prevent: relentlesss, unavoidable, inescapable, inevitable, irrevocable. The failure of these scientists to correctly communicate their findings risks grants of millions of dollars absolutely essential to save the reef.

Gary J. Wilson, Macgregor

The Chief Minister has refused the payment of an ex gratia sum to a young boy who was the victim of a brutal dog attack ("Ex gratia payment for dog attack victim fails", August 3, p3), reportedly because the claim "did not meet the strict set of criteria needed to approve such a payment".

Another article on the same day ("Panel to scrutinise golf course housing", August 3, p8) reported that the Federal Golf Club will be asking the government to waive or discount the lease variation tax if the club goes ahead with its plans to build 125 homes and a new clubhouse on its golf course.

Presumably there is a strict set of criteria to determine whether a lease variation tax should be paid. I wonder whether those criteria will force the Chief Minister to reject the waiving of the tax if the development project goes ahead.

David Pederson, O'Connor

There is a lot of concern about the effect of the Trump administration on the world, but is our own government doing any better? Since the end of the 20th century the world has been undergoing a knowledge revolution that seems to be passing our leaders by.

We allow this to happen at our peril. Both the Prime Minister and Education Minister completed their undergraduate studies last century and are out of touch. Lifelong learning is not part of their vocabulary.

The recent NAPLAN education tests show only marginal improvement, hardly surprising in the current environment with no leadership in the field. Worse still, increasing university fees means less knowledge access and fewer graduates in future. We will decrease the Australian knowledge bank even further.

The current time and money consumed by the same-sex marriage debate is but one instance of the cost of the current situation. Other countries have quietly gone ahead and achieved necessary reform.

Biologically babies are regularly born with mixed genitals, with doctors performing surgery based on guesswork and sometimes getting it wrong. Even with this evidence our leaders are not sufficiently educated to settle the debate and move on to more pressing issues, including ensuring sufficient graduates to enable us to continue to compete in the world.

Australia is part of a very competitive world and to be able to hold our own we need real leadership in the field, particularly in the knowledge field.

Unfortunately in the last-century world in which our leaders live we are missing out.

Dr Audrey Guy, Ngunnawal

John Warhurst ("Bold leaders need to have a go at section 44", August 3, p17) argues that the breaches of Section 44 of our constitution, which threatens the careers of some careless if not dumb parliamentarians, are merely "unintended, smaller technical breaches".

The breaches may well be "unintended", that that's just tough — the law is the law. And some of the explanations proffered by the senators are really smart arse and an attempt to deflect blame and keep snouts in troughs, e.g. "Mum did it" and "the British high commission is administratively slow".

Most Australians have an expectation that our politicians, who are after all the people who impose laws on us, should have the decency to adhere to all laws.

If not, can we now expect that Centrelink will now accept statements from DSS beneficiaries that their failure to disclose income to a government agency was just an "unintended technical breach".

Canavan and Roberts must resign now, before any high court consideration, andtake their chances with the rest of usina court of law.

Now that's real equality.

Bill Brown, Holt

'SHOCK JOCK'

Well it takes a Sydney "Shock Jock" to articulate what most fair minded Canberrans think of the Green Minister in the ACT Government.

Brendan Ryan, Mawson

SURPRISED, DISAPPOINTED

Am I the only one to be surprised, and disappointed, to see the Justice Precinct extension built so close to Vernon Circle?

Patricia Ramsay, Ainslie

UNIQUE MEANING

Regarding Jenny Noyes' article ("Tony Abbott's claim that marriage is to protect women and children rewrites history", canberratimes.com.au) – it is hard to speak against same-sex marriage politely; someone will insist on being outraged. If Ms Noyes gets her wish and marriage becomes only a symbol of commitment, then marriage will have lost its unique meaning. Not everyone wants marriage to lose its unique meaning.

Christopher Budd, Turner

'CAN CAUSE VIOLENCE'

Perhaps all alcohol containers should have the words "poison" and "can cause violence" plus graphic depictions of alcohol-related diseases and injuries?

Rod Matthews, Fairfield, Victoria

WISH WARNING

Take a look at all the countries that have fought for and won their independence. How many have ended up as a complete disaster? Be careful what you wish for.

Therese van Pelt-Penders, Page

NON-CORE PROMISES

Why can't the promise of a plebiscite on same-sex marriage be relegated to John Howard's excuse of non-core promises? Turnbull can then move a vote on conscience that most support, to legalise it.

Doug Davies, Palmerston

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).