Dense and denser

What has just been announced for the Canberra Brickworks site ("Caveats on brickworks site", April 2, p1) is a density of between 11 and 24 dwellings per hectare. The current dwelling density for the whole of buildable Red Hill is around 6.7; however, the expected density in the redevelopment area is a massive 102 dwellings per hectare.

My pretty pamphlet tells me that community consultation reduced the number of storeys from six to four, which will reduce the traffic impact. My pretty pamphlet does not say that an additional storey is allowed, so four can become five – and that the number of dwellings allowed is unrestricted.

How could anyone think it makes sense to put more than 33per cent of all of the dwellings in Red Hill into 1.5per cent of the land?

J. Rogers, Red Hill

Surely, the Red Hill flats redevelopment is not to become as dominating an eyesore as the Kingston foreshore barricade and the "Great Wall of Goyder" apartments overlooking the Capital Golf Course? The former now competes in stature with national icon buildings around the lake, and the latter are reminiscent in impact of the "Hollywood" appellation gracing Los Angeles (when the smog lifts).

I do not object to higher-density housing in the vicinity of suburban centres – it makes good sense. But why turn an established green belt on the lower slopes of Red Hill into yet another concrete skyscape? Some common sense was shown in relation to planning for the old brickworks precinct.

There is a good case for similar common sense in relation to the Red Hill precinct. Erosion doesn't degrade as quickly as a tsunami; it works insidiously, little by little, but ultimately achieves the same despoiling end. How long before Canberra's green skyline turns drab grey?

Albert Caton, Red Hill

I was at Manuka Oval yesterday cheering the Giants' win, but as a Canberran, I express strong opposition to the Grocon/GWS Giants' plans for Manuka Oval, and support local residents' protests against the plan. Manuka Green's murky origins – a suspicious alliance between Big Money, Big Sport and Gullible Government – makes me wary. The plans for 1000 apartments and a hotel seem excessive for a site whose roads and parking infrastructure could not cope with the thousands of extra vehicles – as parking at Sunday's game showed. The ACT government seems gullible and gutless: goodbye Manuka.

Peter Stanley, Dickson

Peter Stanley's article ("Menzies' dream library turns into nightmare", Times2, April 1, p5) does the National Library a disservice. If Sir Robert Menzies were to return today, he would be amazed by what has been created within the shell he launched.

Fifty years of solid achievement have seen, in addition to the superb general collection, the establishment of special collections, such as the ephemera collection and the Asian collection, which are national treasures in their own right. The staff are, without exception in my experience, consummate professionals who go way beyond the call of duty. Of course, the budget cuts by governments of both stripes in recent years are indefensible. It is particularly sad that the flagship magazine is ceasing publication and that Trove may be compromised. The staff cuts are also counterproductive, to say the least. But let's keep things in perspective. Taking the long view, the National Library is indeed a "dream library". Let's not sell it short.

Elizabeth Nelson, Macquarie

I was saddened to see your editorial commending the Liberal bus plan for Canberra ("Liberals put the gloss back on the buses", Times2, April 1, p2). The Liberal Party has publicly stated that private motor cars will be the principal mode of transport in Canberra "for the foreseeable future". The plan unveiled by Alistair Coe is simply a cosmetic gesture, designed to destroy the only realistic alternative to urban car travel: light rail.

Its delivery of high-volume, high-frequency public transport, with no need to consult a schedule, is the only way Canberra will lose its destructive dependency on the automobile. A bus network will simply contribute to road congestion. Mr Coe knows this, but has chosen to engage in cynical vote-buying at the expense of Canberra's future.

If his party attains government in the 2016 elections, we will be looking at a gridlocked city, elderly people endangering themselves and others by driving when they can't, and an enormous bill for abandoning a contract.

John Mason, Latham

In 2012, Labor committed to spend $37million on buses and increase the bus commute mode share to 10.5per cent by 2016.

In 2011, the mode share was 7.8per cent, and by 2015 it was 7per cent.

Each 0.1 per cent loss of mode share has cost about $4million.

Labor plans to spend $300million more than it would cost for a Gungahlin-to-Civic busway, to generate $50million worth of additional benefits.

Now Labor says the Liberals' transport plan is "massively undercosted".

Leon Arundell, Downer

To create a white elephant, spend a billion dollars on cosmetic changes to an existing public transport system without addressing the underlying problems. Trams full of Gungahlin commuters stop-starting their way down Northbourne Avenue to Civic will not resolve the problems created by decades of poor urban design and transport planning.

The majority of Canberra commuters with predictable transport needs could be catered for by a fleet of mini and mid-sized buses(autonomous or otherwise) providing a convenient, demand-driven, express service. Uber-like car sharing, taxis and electric bicycles could be arranged for most of the remaining commuters. Private car usage should be a last resort.

Australia has the expertise and capacity to manufacture fleets of comfortable, electric mini and mid-sized buses. These could be driven normally, operate autonomously at low speeds or link up wirelessly to form a virtual tram at higher speeds.

Andrew Roberts, Kambah

We should thank Malcolm Mackerras ("There will be no federal election this winter", Times2, March 30, p5) and Senator Bob Day, pictured above, for launching a defence of the electoral system.

It is bad that a few people in parties decide who goes on the voting form. It is worse that another few people in parties decide on the distribution of votes. It is outrageous that the proposed voting form makes it almost impossible to elect a person from outside a party.

Instead of restricting our choices we can make the voting system extend our choices.

We can do it within the constitution. We can do it for low cost. We can make the political parties more democratic.

It is practical to give people a choice. A person could specify how to distribute their vote. Or they can could ask one of the candidates to distribute their vote for them. Giving people choices can be made simple.

Ballot papers could print all candidates in a random order. Each candidate could have a party symbol next to their name. A person votes 1, 2, 3. If the vote is not exhausted then the preferences are distributed with rules specified by the firstperson for whom a person voted.

Counting and distributing the votes with this system will be quicker and less costly than the current or proposed system.

Kevin Cox, Ngunnawal

As we lurch towards our next territory election – where we get to pay for the salaries of a number of extra politicians and their associated hangers-on – I despair at our future budget emergencies. A tram we can't afford, anyone?

But here is an idea to lessen the burden, at least at a federal level. Could all future Olympic aspirants please agree that they will fund their own travel and training costs to attend future Olympic events? It's a big call, I know, but I know where my taxpayer dollars could be better spent (and it is not a tram that no one will use).

Kim Fitzgerald, Deakin

When Malcolm Turnbull offered the states the opportunity to impose an income tax, he described it as one of the greatest potential reforms to Federation in 'generations'... "this, we believe, is the only way that we can genuinely reform our Federation ... It will give the states real financial autonomy".

But when the states rejected the offer, Turnbull initially described it as "not there" now. Soon, however, it reappeared, first in the COAG Communique which provides for "proposals to share personal income tax" to be considered and a report made to the next COAG.

This, despite an assertion by the states that there is no consensus to support further consideration.

Since COAG, Turnbull has claimed that the states' refusal to consider a sharing of income tax means they cannot ask the Commonwealth to increase taxes. But this is allowed for in the case of the GST, which is a Commonwealth tax.

In reality, Turnbull has skated over a vast range of questions about financial relationships and has failed to issue a paper providing the detail of any rearrangement. Another failure of economic policy.

Des Moore, Malua Bay, NSW

It is so unthinkable – indeed, apparently, un-Australian – for the states to be able to have different rates of taxation, why do they need different governments? Why should state politicians spend Commonwealth tax receipts – often on their own self-aggrandisement – with no electoral accountability for the pain of the associated revenue raising?

Quite what is wrong with the Commonwealth underpinning a uniform national base level of relevant government services and the states setting their own tax rates to fund – and be accountable for – their needs or aspirations above that base?

Is the competition that is so central to the industrial economy to be excluded from the political economy? Why should any resultant race be to the bottom, rather than to the top? Such are the capacities, calibre and courage of our contemporary political placemen.

Mike Hutchinson, Reid

It's my belief Malcolm Turnbull's latest thought bubble of enabling the states to raise their own taxes is not only a bad move but an extremely unfair one, and not as you state ("The widening political disconnect", Editorial, Forum, April 2, p5) an entirely necessary one. The states will raise the money by taxing the likes of you and me.

Now that's fine – I'm happy to pay tax for public health and public education, as hopefully I'm sure we all are.

However, Mr Turnbull has not explained how much we will have to pay. It will not fall to the rich and privileged, it will fall to the middle class, as usual.

The only government who can make tax fairer and more equitable is the federal government and not by avoiding their responsibility. This particular federal government is completely devoid of ideas and comes up with this one.

If it wasn't so tragic, it would be laughable.

Jan Gulliver, Lyneham

I didn't expect a Canberra Times editorial as an April Fool's joke, but it must be ("The widening political disconnect", Editorial, canberratimes.com.au, April 1). Otherwise, how would you explain an acceptance of thought-bubble politics and transparent funding implications for private/government education and power plays like the senate reform (despite justification, it is self-serving) and the silent denial of independent advice to fix various class-serving tax loopholes, like super and CGT and negative gearing.

That's for starters, but it is a joke, isn't it?

Eric Pozza, Red Hill

Mark Kenny ("Turnbull stung into action", Times2, April 1, p1) noted that Malcolm Turnbull's cautious approach had suddenly turned bold.

If giving the states income taxing powers is a bold idea, then I suggest Malcolm Turnbull would be wise to remain cautious.

If Malcolm Turnbull does want to do something bold and also get voters' interest, perhaps he could come up with a strategy about saving the Great Barrier Reef.

Unlike the coal and fossil fuels industry, the reef is an ongoing and priceless asset. The attitude of governments (both Commonwealth and state) towards this diminishing asset is shameful.

Robyn Vincent, Mckellar

I find Malcolm Turnbull's efforts on reforming the tax system and reforming the building unions too narrow.

Reform should start with those who rort the system – in particular, the tax system. Chief Justice Garfield Barwick legalised the rorting with his High Court judgment that every citizen had the right to minimise the amount of taxation they paid. This opened the floodgates to the present torrent of tax avoidance.

He should have ruled that all citizens should have a obligation to pay a fair share of taxation based on their total actual net income. In short, if you live the lifestyle of a billionaire and pay no tax, the ATO should have the right to make a assessment of tax owed, based on that lifestyle. Any politician, especially a prime minister, should have to abide by that rule.

Until that happy day comes, the average Australian will not be happy to pay increased taxes while an immoral minority live the life of Riley.

Howard Carew, Isaacs

I concur wholeheartedly with Rory McEllicot (Letters, April 4) about tax evasion by free-loading corporations, both Australian and international. No, Prime Minister, it's not up to the states and territories to fund their particular public school and hospital needs.

It's up to your government to extract the billions of dollars of taxes owed by tricky corporations, many of whom have paid little or no tax in Australia.

These companies make profits from their Australian operations, pay their Australian-based employees from offshore offices, make significant and often secretive political donations but pay little or no taxes.

How many more "innovative" ideas will Mr Turnbull offer during budget preparation and the coming election campaign? Will he then shower voters with sweeteners in the final weeks of the election campaign?

Suzanne Vidler, O'Malley

TRIPLE DISILLUSION

First there were captain's calls, now we have imperial calls and soon, Ibelieve, shop steward's calls. My prediction for the overall outcome is a triple disillusion.

Dennis Hale, Beecroft, NSW

TURNBULL DISAPPOINTS

I consider myself a conservative in some respects and a progressive on others. I agree with Steven Haley (Letters, March 31). Malcolm Turnbull has disappointed me on both fronts. As for Michael McCarthy's opinion (Letters, March 30) that Turnbull's "doing reasonably well so far", I ask at what?

John Hutka, Ngunnawal

ABBOTT TO THE RESCUE

Querulous Malcolm: "Well Scott, that didn't work, what do we do now?" Indignant Scott: "What are you asking me for? You haven't, before now." Agile Malcolm: "I know, let's call Tony."

Peter Crossing, Curtin

SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Is it true that refugee children have been freed from captivity by simply renaming the detention centres "community detention"? If this is correct the department and its staff have really earned their efficiency dividend this year. Similarly, the minister should be ensured of re-election.

C.J. Johnston, Duffy

BIG NOT ALWAYS BETTER

The Canberra Times editorial "The widening political disconnect" (Forum, April 2, p5) finally puts paid to the tired old "we need more taxpayers to fund infrastructure" argument. It correctly points out that the infrastructure bill associated with a rapidly growing population must be borne primarily by existing taxpayers. Perhaps a "big Australia" is not such a good idea after all.

Martin Tye, Broulee, NSW

BISHOP LACKS LOGIC

Once again our Foreign Affairs Minister is "deeply disturbed ", telling us on television how "Australia will never agree to nuclear arms proliferation" . On Friday, I saw her signing a contract to sell uranium to Ukraine.

What part of logic does Julie Bishop not understand?

E. Haddock, Weston

OIL PRICE GOUGING

Arriving in Canberra at the weekend we noted that fuel prices across town floated around $1.20 per litre for diesel. Luckily, we filled up just outside Yass for 99¢ per litre.

Fuel prices here have always been a bone of contention – now it is clear the oil companies are price gouging Canberra residents.

P. Jones, ex-Rivett, now Forster, NSW

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).