The ACT government is hell-bent on carrying out this cull no matter what alternatives are put forward.

Their excuse for doing so – the ecosystem and environment – has to be questioned after hundreds of kangaroos were slaughtered in Belconnen, and surprise, surprise, an upmarket housing estate pops up on that land. That is now Lawson!

I cannot believe the arrogance of this ACT government, they just believe they do not have to answer to anyone. The taxpayers of Canberra, who pay the politicians their salaries, should be given a voice.

B.M. Cooke, Latham

It seems a bit strange for the Sunday Canberra Times editorial ("Prepare for protests as roo cull announced", May 15, 2016) to note, on the one hand, that "arguments abound within the scientific community over the classification of "abundance" and overpopulation of the animals" and then to end up accepting, as though it were a matter of fact, that "like it or not there is an abundance of kangaroos in Canberra".

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this statement. There are no base-line data from which to develop such a hypothesis and no subsequent data on kangaroo numbers.

It may be true that opponents of the slaughter would indeed "value the life of a living creature over the grass and land it is eroding", if the creature was, in fact, eroding the grass. But the science shows that kangaroos are not eroding the grass and land. Where they are permitted to thrive, eg across the border in Queanbeyan, they are maintaining the vegetation in precisely the diversity of landscape required by the other creatures, many of them threatened reptiles and insects, that live in the grass.

If the ACT government still believes there is an abundance of kangaroos in Canberra, why has it not at least tried to prove it by monitoring and evaluating the impacts of its kangaroo slaughtering policy, as required by its otherwise science-bereft Kangaroo Management Plan.

Frankie Seymour, Queanbeyan

What precisely has sparked Geoff Armstrong's hysterical call for a complete overhaul of our Federal Constitution (Sunday Canberra Times Letters, May 15)?

Mr Armstrong gives off more than a whiff of a disappointed ideologue whose pet project failed to survive the scrutiny of an electorate which dispatched what he had to say to the dustbin.

Mr Armstrong is urged to put to one side Manning Clark's ratty rants to the ANU's great unwashed via his lectures and fireside chats. Where the professor has credibility and is really worth a look, however, is his Select Documents in Australian History, (re-printed 1975), pages 467-516.

I commend these to Mr Armstrong because they contain Parkes' classic "Tenterfield Oration", first delivered in November 1889, and then several times in other locations over the next six months.

What is also a must-read in these pages are the many "resolutions" advanced during the great conferences leading to Federation. This was democracy, writ large. Then polish your understanding, Mr Armstrong, of Australian democracy by absorbing Garran's superb Annotated Constitution; and complement that with Deakin's The Federal Story.

And now for the boring bit: employ some detachment when analysing the success rate of referendums calling for change. In the democratic process, Mr Armstrong, Australians have repeatedly and firmly announced that our Federal Constitution is sound. Get over it, Sir.

Patrick Jones, Griffith

I agree with Barb Mitchell of Ngunnawal (Letters, May 15) who suggested that everyone who is not on a bicycle should walk on the right side of the bike path.

With a lot of pedestrians wearing earphones or headphones, a person riding a bike ringing a bell will not be heard.

If everyone is walking on the right side, facing cyclists, then everyone would see the cyclists coming and could easily move out of the way and avoid the cyclists and danger.

I am a walker and rider.

Tad Dufelmeier, Gordon

Yep, let's "widen and duplicate busy [bicycle] paths" (Sunday Canberra Times, May 15). Until recently, I lived less than 90 kilometres from Melbourne. I couldn't walk, let alone cycle, to my local shops; or anywhere else for that matter. The reason? Our roads are not sealed; there is no footpath. And I lived within the town boundary.This is the situation for many regional and country folk around the country. There is simply no money to construct such "luxuries".

Please sit back and think about facilities in Canberra. The suggestions being made to deal with conflicts of users of wonderful paths in Canberra are making Canberrans the laughing stock.

Canberra is a beautiful, planned city but some residents need to get a grip on how to live together, sharing the facilities that many seem to take for granted.

Helen M Goddard, Pascoe Vale, Vic

The Sunday Canberra Times article "Foreign missions run up $5m bill for entertaining" (May 15, p10) states in the first paragraph it was "almost $5 million" and in the second, it was "$4.6 million".

What is the point? Why not "$4.6m" in the headline? That would still be startling enough. In any case 4.6 is not almost 5.

Further down, it says Mr Beazley's mission spent $309,000 and Mr Minchin's $254,000, which is not "almost as much".

The daily The Canberra Times does the same thing. I wish you would both stop it and simply give the facts.

Michael Travis, Bruce

Minister Corbell says there's a "termination-for-convenience clause" in the signed contract for the Gungahlin tram, with the payment amount on termination depending on "the financial commitment the consortium had made [when] the contract was cancelled" ("Canberrans to pay $375m upfront as light rail contact signed", May 18, p1).

And the consortium has "about six months of design to do before construction commences".

Does this mean that when (or if) the Liberals win the election and cancel the contract, the compensation payment shouldn't be very large? Only about whatever doing the design work has cost?

If so, people who oppose the project but are worried about a high price they think would payable when the Liberals cancel the contact (as they are committed to do), will probably vote Liberal at the election.

R.S.Gilbert, Braddon

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).